Your commute is about to get shorter

From the Record:

Cash vs. cachet: N.J. eager to lure NYC firms

Two days after JPMorgan Chase said it had dropped plans to build two new office towers for $6.5 billion in midtown Manhattan, reportedly because New York City refused the company’s request for tax breaks, New Jersey’s economic development team sprang into action.

A letter from Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, Governor Christie’s jobs czar, went out to 275 financial services companies in New York and Philadelphia, touting the “benefits of investing in New Jersey.”

Listing 16 companies that have invested in the state, among them Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and UBS, the letter asked, “What do companies like [these] know that you do not?”

Answering her own question, Guadagno cited New Jersey’s “highly educated workforce,” communications infrastructure, and “new, game-changing tax incentives aimed at attracting and growing businesses.”

The mailing included a copy of a Wall Street Journal article quoting New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio saying that the amount of incentives JPMorgan had requested from the city — which news reports put somewhere between hundreds of millions of dollars and $1 billion — was a “non-starter.” It added that on the campaign trail, de Blasio “took a strong stand against subsidies for larger corporations.” The letter helpfully provided Guadagno’s cellphone number.

The swift offensive reflected a growing belief among the New Jersey development community and state officials that the New York City mayor’s apparent reluctance to lure or keep companies with tax breaks presents a golden opportunity.

To be sure, de Blasio is operating from a position of strength. While New Jersey has recovered only half the jobs lost after the Great Recession, New York City recovered all the jobs lost by March 2012 and since added 225,000 more. And despite its sky-high rents, the financial capital of the world continues to attract top corporations.

Still, New Jersey real estate experts believe that the combination of New Jersey’s revamped and far more generous incentive programs, and de Blasio’s resistance to helping corporations with taxpayer money, could steer New York-based companies, or those looking to come there, across the Hudson River.

This entry was posted in Economics, Employment, North Jersey Real Estate. Bookmark the permalink.

150 Responses to Your commute is about to get shorter

  1. Mike says:

    Good Morning New Jersey

  2. Mike says:

    Don’t Worry Be Happy Try Some Marley Natural

  3. grim says:

    From Bloomberg:

    Philadelphia sports fans to get new casino in shadow of stadiums

    Cordish Cos. and Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment Inc., two closely held real estate developers, won a license to open a casino in Philadelphia within sight of the homes of the city’s professional sports teams.

    The seven-member Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board voted unanimously Tuesday to award the license. The $425 million project, called Live! Hotel & Casino, will be located in south Philadelphia, at a Holiday Inn, near the stadiums where the city’s professional sports teams play. It will have more than 2,000 slot machines and 125 table games as well as a 240-room hotel, restaurants and bars.

    The award spells continuing competition for Atlantic City and other casinos in the northeastern U.S. Live will be the fifth casino in the greater Philadelphia area and the 13th in Pennsylvania, a state that passed New Jersey in 2012 to become the second-largest U.S. gambling hub after Nevada.

    Joe Weinberg, managing partner of Cordish, said the project’s location near the sports arenas gives it access to more than 8.5 million annual visitors.

  4. grim says:

    Is there anything left to save? Too little, too late.

  5. Juice Box says:

    Move to Buffalo

  6. grim says:

    Talked to a colleague up there yesterday, by late afternoon he had gotten 2 feet. He was on his way out with the snow blower before it got too deep to deal with.

  7. Fabius Maximus says:

    With all the garbage that has been written on Net Neutrality in the past few days, it is nice to finally find an article that explains the underlying issue.

    https://medium.com/backchannel/jammed-e474fc4925e4

    O’s proposals meet my industry regulation test. “An industry needs regulated when it is shown it can’t regulate itself”

  8. Essex says:

    Listing 16 companies that have invested in the state, among them Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and UBS, the letter asked, “What do companies like [these] know that you do not?”

    I like the cutting edge campaign that Ms. Gawdogo decided to run…man copy like that just does not write itself.

  9. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    We said at the outset that NJ is a hard sell, and that Christie had a Sysiphean task in trying to bring business and jobs back to NJ.

    Long before Christie took office, Rendell and PA put together a SEAL team of development operatives dedicated to luring business to PA and helping new business cut through the red tape. By all accounts, it was moderately successful and the biggest state to lose business to PA were DE and NJ (made all the more egregious by the fact that Rendell had entered into a no-poaching pledge with NJ and DE). And as you know, PA is an even harder sell than NJ when it comes to poaching from NY (which happened but barely moved the needle). If you are gonna move so far that you have to relocate, might as well move to Texas.

    IMHO, bringing in investment and jobs should have been Christie’s sole focus–I know it was pretty much his sole focus but he should have hammered it like a gong every chance he got and beaten the Assembly about the head with it every chance he got. His mistakes were not proposing a bold, comprehensive plan for tax and regulatory reform, and not painting a bullseye on the dems as obstructionists to inbound investment.

    Ironically, you have DiBlasio trying to alienate employers and Cuomo trying to lure them upstate. So, in reality, you have virtually every governor in the tri-state area, and a few outside, trying to poach NYC. I think that these companies will be getting letters from capitals other than Trenton.

  10. grim says:

    7 – The solution is easy, force a split between providing content and connectivity. This is the root of the problem. The money in the cable business comes from reselling the content, not the cable. With the increase in options around content providers, it’s clear that the cable industry will stop at nothing to close the door on competition.

    Content and Connectivity simply can not coexist within the same company without net neutrality.

    All the blabber about wireline and fiber network investments is bullshit, infrastructure is a minuscule part of the overall business model. Cable companies who also provide internet services are operating as defacto monopolies.

  11. Essex says:

    Texas. The elephant in the room.

  12. Essex says:

    I think in many cases the ‘educated workforce’ will be imported to wherever they are needed. Intelligent people can be found everywhere and dummies can be cycled out as they are ‘exposed’. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

  13. grim says:

    Texas getting really expensive, Austin, San Antonio especially. Buying a house in the “right neighborhoods” doesn’t cost Texas dollars, it costs Northeast dollars. Sure, you get a nice house for $500,000, but we’re still talking $500,000. It’s getting pretty easy to spend $750k on a used house in the most desirable neighborhoods. They’ve completely eclipsed bubble prices, and then some.

    Other than some local Texas flair, I could imagine Gary ranting about these $600k+ Austin shitholes as if they all were in BC.

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2901-S-4th-St-Austin-TX-78704/29474991_zpid/

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/700-W-Oltorf-St-Austin-TX-78704/29473329_zpid/

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2803-S-5th-St-Austin-TX-78704/29474944_zpid/

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3008-Kinney-Ave-Austin-TX-78704/80106874_zpid/

  14. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [7] fabian

    “O’s proposals meet my industry regulation test. “An industry needs regulated when it is shown it can’t regulate itself”

    By that definition, virtually every industry requires regulation. Industries don’t regulate themselves, markets regulate them. In fact, were industries self-regulate without external stimuli, that’s likely to be called anticompetitive.

  15. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [14] redux

    And wish as hard as you want, I don’t think the ICC is ever coming back.

  16. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [12] essex

    As we all know, the reason companies locate where they do is access to the people they need. And if those people want to be near a major city or a beach, it will take more money to get them to relocate.

    Even DC has trouble with this. Young, single law grads flock there for great experience but they hate living there because it is a working town and little else. Surprisingly, there isn’t a lot of night life or culture in DC. It’s there but nowhere near the level of a NYC or SF or even Boston. My firm there had to pay NYC rates to get the talent it wanted.

  17. anon (the good one) says:

    @waltmossberg: Ted Cruz vs. Al Franken: The net neutrality edition

    “Minnesota Democrat Sen. Al Franken has long been one of the most vocal proponents of net neutrality rules. Now, he has a new sparring partner in the form of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who has quickly become one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed broadband rules.

    On Monday, Cruz’s staff responded to comments that Franken made Sunday on CNN suggesting that the Texas senator basically didn’t know what he was talking about.

    “He has it completely wrong, and he just doesn’t understand what the issue is,” Franken said on CNN’s “State of the Union” show Sunday morning.”

  18. Toxic Crayons says:

    Sooooo now does that mean that Jersey City can pay for it’s own schools? Can we stop sending them the bulk of the state aid now and “redistribute” it elsewhere?

  19. GlutMax: Are you from Ohio? Do your clothes need warshed too?

    “O’s proposals meet my industry regulation test. “An industry needs to beregulated when it is shown it can’t regulate itself””

  20. Anon E. Moose says:

    Fabu [7];

    O’s proposals meet my industry regulation test. “An industry needs regulated when it is shown it can’t regulate itself”

    “Shown it can’t regulate itself” == ‘Doesn’t do precisely what Fabu wants, when he wants it.

    Great governing principle for when you’re the king — just like Obama thinks he is.

  21. Ragnar says:

    Can someone remind me again of what Chris Christie has done as governor besides eat donuts, yell at people and clog up traffic? There was that one month he said mean things to the teachers unions and got the 3% annual cap on property tax hikes (which still outpaces inflation and undoubtedly has plenty of loopholes). And he hugged Oblamer in return for hurricane cash. His presidential speech was about making “hard choices” and I haven’t seen him lead on these in NJ.

  22. [10]That makes perfect sense, grim. More precisely what you mean is separate infrastructure from content, right? Is the infrastructure then regulated like a utility or will there be multiple infrastructures to choose from so they can just compete like the content providers?

    7 – The solution is easy, force a split between providing content and connectivity

  23. grim says:

    Christie campaigns like Obama plays golf. Both will end up losers in the end. Err, we’ll all end up losers in the end.

  24. [13] grim – LOL. The first house might not apply as it is less than 10 years old, but the other three from ’62 and earlier could definitely be complained about in BC.
    Texas getting really expensive

  25. Libturd in Union says:

    The smartest thing CC did was to stop the train tunnel. He also passed major pension reforms. The dumbest thing CC did was to aspire to run for the presidency because the moment this occurred, he could no longer do what was good for the people of NJ. Instead, he had to focus on acting like a Republican. This is when his chances of actually obtaining the presidency went into the toilet. They’ll never learn and we’ll end up with another Dem king or queen in the White House who will focus on feel good agenda instead of doing what is best for the people. Baa, baa.

  26. [16]Nom – Sometimes money isn’t even enough. Garmin, the GPS company, bought a company in San Francisco because they had a slick web site/cloud where you could upload all your sports GPS data to their cloud and share it with others. Once purchased, they developed Garmin’s site, http://connect.garmin.com , which was successful. After a while they decided, to cut costs, they would relocate their San Fran developers to the corporate HQ …in Olathe, Kansas. The whole team said “Forget it!”, but Garmin closed them down anyway.

    As we all know, the reason companies locate where they do is access to the people they need. And if those people want to be near a major city or a beach, it will take more money to get them to relocate.

  27. [25] Well said, Lib. That’s the way I see it.

    The smartest thing CC did was to stop the train tunnel. He also passed major pension reforms. The dumbest thing CC did was to aspire to run for the presidency because the moment this occurred, he could no longer do what was good for the people of NJ. Instead, he had to focus on acting like a Republican. This is when his chances of actually obtaining the presidency went into the toilet. They’ll never learn and we’ll end up with another Dem king or queen in the White House who will focus on feel good agenda instead of doing what is best for the people. Baa, baa.

  28. nwnj says:

    I’ve grown to like the road analogy when it comes to net neutrality. The issue has been so muddled(likely inentionally so) that most of the discussions surrounding net neutrality are nonsense.

    The issue of net neutrality is best compared to roads. Pretend for minute that all roads are private, and the speed that you are able to travel on those roads is dictated by your destination.

    Does everyone agree that analogy is apt? It’s hard to understand how that will stimulate innovation and competition. Sounds more like a strategy to secure entrenched interests and build large barriers to newcomers.

  29. Next Democratic ticket will Hillary running with some black latina chick as VP. 8 years later the DNC will move on to disabled gay and tranny candidates.

  30. joyce says:

    Govt grants semi-monopoly status, and now govt needs to regulate it. Yeah, I see no problem with that logic.

    Fabius Maximus says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:27 am

    With all the garbage that has been written on Net Neutrality in the past few days, it is nice to finally find an article that explains the underlying issue.
    https://medium.com/backchannel/jammed-e474fc4925e4

    O’s proposals meet my industry regulation test. “An industry needs regulated when it is shown it can’t regulate itself”

  31. joyce says:

    Yes on both counts. 1) The marketplace is supposed to be the regulator (the buyers and the sellers). 2) OPEC self regulates at times. I believe they’re called a cartel. Not unlike many a industry in this country with the full backing of govt at multiple levels.

    Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:53 am

    [7] fabian

    “O’s proposals meet my industry regulation test. “An industry needs regulated when it is shown it can’t regulate itself”

    By that definition, virtually every industry requires regulation. Industries don’t regulate themselves, markets regulate them. In fact, were industries self-regulate without external stimuli, that’s likely to be called anticompetitive.

  32. Ragnar says:

    Hillary could run with DiBlasio’s wife as VP. After all, she did say she can still be attracted to women.
    http://tinyurl.com/kmttvyg

  33. joyce says:

    Comrade,
    The Interstate Commerce Commission immediately fell to regulatory capture. And by that, I mean it worked exactly as intended.

    Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:54 am

    [14] redux
    And wish as hard as you want, I don’t think the ICC is ever coming back.

  34. grim says:

    You guys ever see what the cable companies pay to NJ municipalities in franchise fees?

    What’s that all about…

  35. Libturd in Union says:

    I’m mixed over the net neutrality debate since the government really can’t be trusted to regulate anything. Not when they continue to answer to the highest bidder.

    Looking at the NetFlix/Comcast dilemma, why didn’t Netflix play hardball like Steinbrenner did with the cable companies to make them pay for the YES Network. Cablevision held out the longest, but eventually caved to market demands, that being that most New Yorkers wanted to watch the Yankees and were willing to switch cable providers to watch the games. Why didn’t NetFlix tell Comcast that they wouldn’t allow NetFlix to be streamed on their Networks if they were not given equal access to their bandwidth? Eventually, someone would have come in and offered a product (be it WiFi or another cable company) which allowed full speed streaming of NetFlix. And Comcast would lose a lot of customers.

    With regulation, NetFlix and Comcast will to grease the palms of congress (especially those who oversee the new FCC in charge of NN) to obtain favor. This sounds like a great plan. Doesn’t it?

  36. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:
  37. Libturd in Union says:

    You guys ever see what the cable companies pay to NJ municipalities in franchise fees?

    I know a bit about this Grim as I watched the wheels of progress turn when Verizon wanted to lay fiber to compete with Comcast in Montklair. In exchange for the permission to put the fiber on the towns telephone poles, Montklair got some pretty fancy Public Access Studio equipment free of charge. Well free in the eyes of the Net Neutrality sheep.

  38. grim says:

    Newark gets paid $740,000 a year for the privilege of selling it’s residents cable.

  39. grim says:

    $516k annually for Montclair

  40. Libturd in Union says:

    Poor Mayord De Blaze.

    His biggest aid was also Sharpton’s aid (as well as Obama’s). And her son can’t stay out of jail.

    Progressives helping progressives.

  41. Libturd in Union says:

    Grim, I don’t remember the details, but I do remember Comcast fighting tooth and nail against it. I forgot what they offered Montklair.

  42. Michael says:

    Michael says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    November 19, 2014 at 8:25 am
    Gotta love PA’s effort to become more trashy. All for the love of the dollar bill. Why in the world would you want to litter your state with a bunch of ca$ino’s. What a bunch of idiots.

    grim says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:16 am
    From Bloomberg:

    Philadelphia sports fans to get new ca$ino in shadow of stadiums

  43. Ragnar says:

    Libturd,
    I agree that the tunnel CC killed was likely to be a financial disaster. But then he offered no alternative vision for transportation in NJ. These days, government has a monopoly on commuter transportation infrastructure, yet doesn’t really invest much in it. A real leader would be looking to transform this blockade, and try to create new structures to get private investment to create new and better transport capacity. But CC isn’t that sort of guy. He slams the teachers union, but doesn’t create paths to new and better education provision. He shuts down a tunnel, but does nothing to encourage new investment to solve transportation bottlenecks that are real, and which make NJ less competitive than it should be.

  44. nwnj says:

    #35

    “Why didn’t NetFlix tell Comcast that they wouldn’t allow NetFlix to be streamed on their Networks if they were not given equal access to their bandwidth?”

    Because netflix doesn’t mind paying the fees as long as the ISPs agree to throttle down to unbearable levels all of their competitors.

  45. grim says:

    A real leader would be looking to transform this blockade, and try to create new structures to get private investment to create new and better transport capacity. But CC isn’t that sort of guy.

    Unfair, he did send a nastygram to the United CEO for pulling out of Atlantic City Airport. I hear it was very sternly worded. He even threatened to take his first class travel to another airline if a photo op couldn’t be provided quickly.

  46. Libturd in Union says:

    I think CC was actually the best gov NJ has had since Florio. Unfortunately, that doesn’t say much.

  47. joyce says:

    Why do they always introduce criminal traitor Hayden as formal general/CIA/NSA etc etc… and never “a current principal at the Chertoff Group, a security consultancy co-founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.” (a.k.a. a lobbyist)

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/michael-v-hayden-and-michael-b-mukasey-nsa-reform-that-only-isis-could-love-1416268847

  48. Libturd in Union says:

    Where’s my market rally?

  49. Toxic Crayons says:

    He nominated left wing nut Rabner for tenure in the NJSC and supported Cuomo for Governor I think.

    Ragnar says:
    November 19, 2014 at 9:04 am
    Can someone remind me again of what Chris Christie has done as governor besides eat donuts, yell at people and clog up traffic? There was that one month he said mean things to the teachers unions and got the 3% annual cap on property tax hikes (which still outpaces inflation and undoubtedly has plenty of loopholes). And he hugged Oblamer in return for hurricane cash. His presidential speech was about making “hard choices” and I haven’t seen him lead on these in NJ.

  50. Anon E. Moose says:

    Lib [35];

    Funny you mention Steinbrenner and YES network. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me and cable TV, c. 2002-03 (?) until I moved from Floral Park. I was working days, going to school at nights. Spouse has just started her grad program in the evenings.

    I lived in Long Island, and could get 5 networks, 2 independents, and 3 PBS stations over the air with a basic UHF antenna. This was shortly before the digital switch and that only increased the number of channels available. I think MNF was still on ABC, because with the 9:00 PM start I would get home from school and sit down over my dinner to watch the second half kick-off abt. 10:30 PM.

    So anyway, against that background, Cablevision wanted a premium tier for MSG (Rangers), and then were d!cking around by not carrying YES. Considering my limited time to watch TV at all, given what I could get for free, and how much they were asking for what I really wanted to watch, I turned in my cable box. Dolans also owned the “WIZ” chain of electronics stores, so they had a Cablevision outlet in every store. You could just bring your box in to drop it off. I walked in box in hand wearing my Yankees cap — the sales guy waiting to pounce on anything that came through the door know exactly why I was there.

    YES network was a tough pill for Cablevision to swallow because CVC is owned by the Dolans and the Mets could never have made the kind of money YES did. I spent a few years listening to the NYY on the radio. When the radio contract moved from 77 ABC to 88 CBS, they announced that the dollars Steinbrenner got for just radio air rights was more than 5 other teams in the league got for their TV rights.

  51. [44] I use Netflix like a WAN accelerator. I can download Movies, Homeland, The NewRoom, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, Nurse Jackie, etc. faster via torrents if I leave Netflix running.

  52. Not Libturd says:

    Grim unmod me, funny links

  53. I agree Florio was best. At least he lowered the sales tax.

  54. Toxic Crayons says:

    Nancy Pelosi denies handicapped, pregnant, minority woman proxy vote in the House.

    http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/08g4yv/pretty-woman

  55. [51] JJ probably has more Bush offenses than that in a single Hampton bar.

  56. Bystander says:

    Funny, UBS has all but abandoned Stamford, leaving the minimal shell to keep its tax deal with Malloy…but NJ is going to a boon from them? Hogwash..

    http://m.ctpost.com/local/article/Boomtown-under-Malloy-Stamford-now-at-crossroads-5832407.php

  57. Not Anon (not the good one) says:

    Tea Party ‏@TeaPartyOrg Nov 14
    Impeach Obama!
    Demand action from Congress
    Send an Impeach Obama Fax Blast. #tcot
    http://www.teaparty.org

  58. Anon E. Moose says:

    Baaa, baaaa [51];

    Do we really need to bring up Obama’s illegal extended family?

  59. Not Anon (not the good one) says:

    Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks

    by George J. Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger, Gordon H. Hanson
    The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skill black men, fell precipitously from 1960 to 2000. At the same time, the incarceration rate of black men rose markedly. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in black employment and incarceration. Using data drawn from the 1960-2000 U.S. Censuses, we find a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates.
    As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 3.6 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 2.4 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point.

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w12518

  60. Libturd in Union says:

    I’m not clicking on the link.

  61. Fabius Maximus says:

    #14 Eddie Ray

    “Industries don’t regulate themselves, markets regulate them.” Shareholder value does not care who’s internet is getting throttled as long as Max coin is being made. Markets for the most part don’t care how the companies make coin. In this case how is the market punishing the ISP for throttling?

  62. Statler Waldorf says:

    I’d imagine for most a Jersey City commute is only marginally better than a NY City commute.

  63. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [42] Michael

    I love the idea. This way, the goombas from South Philly can spend their entire lives there, never, ever leaving the area bounded by 95, 76, and Washington Ave. I call that a win-win.

  64. joyce says:

    The marketplace is not the same thing as the stock market.

    Maybe the govt. shouldn’t have granted (and remove) their the monopoly status in various locations.

    Why isn’t that on the table?

    Fabius Maximus says:
    November 19, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    #14 Eddie Ray
    “Industries don’t regulate themselves, markets regulate them.” Shareholder value does not care who’s internet is getting throttled as long as Max coin is being made. Markets for the most part don’t care how the companies make coin. In this case how is the market punishing the ISP for throttling?

  65. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [63] fabian

    I said “markets”, not “stock market.” Go back and dust off your Econ 101 textbook. It will be the one with all the doodles in the margins.

  66. Fabius Maximus says:

    #10 Grim,

    The connectivity side then needs regulations to treat all content providers the same. Its still the same argument.

  67. Fabius Maximus says:

    #19 ExPat

    if I wanted regulated as an active verb, I would have used “to be”. As it is, the common noun stands on its own.

  68. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [66] joyce,

    Thank you.

    And that is a fair question; why isn’t it on the table? If deregulation is to be real, there has to be competition.

    I’ve largely stayed out of this because I am both conflicted and not entirely knowledgeable on this. The article on throttling, which is just one aspect of this entire debate, is informative (if not a bit slanted). The arguments of both sides have merit and I am not sure I disagree that certain industries, when deemed necessary for health and welfare and for which gov. has given a de jure or de facto monopoly, should be regulated as utilities.

    As for the last mile, I have some insights there but have to stay out of it.

  69. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [70] redux

    Besides, there is another reason I am staying out of it. I like the controversy. Lots of work for lawyers!!!!

  70. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [69] fabian

    Sorry, still doesn’t make sense as written.

    I gave you a pass for the typo; I just assumed it was an autocorrect error or plain laziness (which I don’t ding, being lazy myself). You should have gone with that.

  71. grim says:

    72 – How about you post a desirable suburb of Houston? You might need to tack a zero onto those prices.

    I don’t get it, in NJ, we wouldn’t be caught dead living in a middle class shithole. It’s Saddle River, Millburn, Ridgewood, and Brigadoon … or die.

    But in Houston you’ll go live in some 3rd tier neighborhood?

  72. chicagofinance says:

    But who spent the money and took the risk to build the road?
    It is the same argument as pharmaceuticals/biotech companies…….or really anything where risk taking and innovation are compensated…..

    nwnj says:

    November 19, 2014 at 9:35 am

    I’ve grown to like the road analogy when it comes to net neutrality. The issue has been so muddled(likely inentionally so) that most of the discussions surrounding net neutrality are nonsense.

    The issue of net neutrality is best compared to roads. Pretend for minute that all roads are private, and the speed that you are able to travel on those roads is dictated by your destination.

    Does everyone agree that analogy is apt? It’s hard to understand how that will stimulate innovation and competition. Sounds more like a strategy to secure entrenched interests and build large barriers to newcomers.

  73. Libturd in Union says:

    I’ve been to Austin. It is desirable and in a way, quite similar to North Jersey. I’m not surprised real estate is expensive there. The house our friends own could have been plucked right out of the 1920’s stock that is so common in my area. And Austin has just as much traffic to boot. The only difference as I could tell was the bible study group I witnessed in the park built next to the Whole Foods we were shopping at. Their BBQ is much better too, but good luck finding an edible bagel or pizza.

  74. chicagofinance says:

    VZ issued bonds to build FiOS…….they have already gotten burned by the financial crash, the advent and mass adoption of web enabled phones, the fees extracted for sports programming content providers, and now cord cutting……but now bondholders need to bear further risks from the Obamunists for a problem that “theoretically” exists, but has yet to be proved as a long-term, or even short-term, threat to the consumer…….

  75. Toxic Crayons says:

    Israel to Ease Gun Laws in Wake of Deadly Attack, Says Security Minister

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/11/18/israel-to-ease-gun-laws-in-wake-of-deadly-attack-says-security-minister/

    Two Palestinians burst into a Jerusalem synagogue during morning services and attacked worshipers with a gun and ax, killing four Israelis and wounding six, Israeli police said. Abir Sultan/European Pressphoto Agency
    Israel is temporarily easing its guns laws in the wake of one of the worst Palestinian attacks in the city in years, according to media reports.

    “In the coming hours, I will ease restrictions on carrying weapons,” Israel’s public security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovich, said Tuesday in remarks broadcast on public radio, the AFP reported.

    Two Palestinians burst into a Jerusalem synagogue Tuesday during morning services and attacked worshipers with a gun, knives and axes, killing three U.S.-Israeli citizens and a British-Israeli and wounding seven people, Israeli police said.

    How exactly the rules would be adjusted isn’t clear. But speaking from the scene of the attack, the security minister suggested the rules would relax carrying restrictions for private security guards and off-duty army officers, the AFP said.

    Hundreds of thousands of Israelis carry firearms, according to Israel’s Firearm Licensing Department. But there’s no equivalent of the Second Amendment, and the civilian gun ownership rate there is much lower than it is in America.

  76. Anon E. Moose says:

    I understand Austin to be the island of blue in Texas’ sea of red. Not surprising in the least, given its tech ties to silicon valley. They even elect prosecutors who think its a good idea to indict (not impeach) a sitting governor for using his constitutionally granted veto power.

    Anyway, I thought there was a well-established correlation between lefty urban planning and land use controls on the on hand, and inflated housing prices on the other. You see those “men and women of the people” don’t want to actually live next to any of them.

  77. Libturd in Union says:

    I side with ChiFi. When AT&T was forced to split into the baby bells, their unlimited profits which funded Bell Labs (transistors, cell phones, and pretty much every technological improvement) dried up. So did much of America’s technological ingenuity. And local telephone rates went through the roof as all of the individual baby bells had government induced carte blanch to do so. When it was all said and done, we got cheaper long distance but more expensive short distance and no more Bell Labs. Some times a monopoly has positive side effects.

    Sorry, but I don’t trust our government. Neither should you.

  78. Libturd in Union says:

    That is true Moose. NIMBY transcends all personal beliefs.

  79. jj says:

    Chifi you should do options on this it bounces 6% up and 6% down almost daily. Weekly puts and calls and you will have a Hampton house soon.

    Goodrich Petroleum Corporation

    NYSE: GDP – Nov 19 1:19 PM ET

    9.360.51 (5.76%)

  80. 1987 Condo says:

    How much snow can the roofs of houses hold?….I guess we will find out as they are approaching 6 feet in Buffalo area….

  81. joyce says:

    The “risk” they took came with the agreement that they would be the only provider in certain areas (or 1 of 2), etc etc. Sort of limits the risk in the future, doesn’t it?

    chicagofinance says:
    November 19, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    But who spent the money and took the risk to build the road?

  82. grim says:

    What “risk” to revenue does net neutrality imply anyway?

    As far as I understand it, I’m still going to have to pay $180 month for shitty TV and Internet.

    Is the argument that we should have to pay even more for TV and Internet? How much do they need to charge to cover their costs and not have to make back room deals?

    What happens to their revenue model when a wireless carrier moves into a market, and is not burdened by franchise agreements and inability to hang cables on poles?

  83. grim says:

    Any way this goes, the cable companies lose.

    Content will decouple from connection, mark my words.

    The best the cable companies can do is to unbundle all channels, everything ala carte, cost plus from the content provider, and move away from this archaic curated channel model. Don’t tell me what I want and don’t want.

  84. [60] BadGramMax – “regulated” can never be anything except a verb or an adjective. If you want a noun made from a verb form your only options are 1.) infinitive , “to regulate” or 2.) gerund, “regulating” (if used properly, that is). Maybe you meant “An industry needs regulated regulation when it is shown it can’t regulate itself”? Lefties are always deficient in math, but sometimes they can write. I guess not always.

    #19 ExPat

    if I wanted regulated as an active verb, I would have used “to be”. As it is, the common noun stands on its own.

  85. Libturd in Union says:

    Grim,

    I’ve always wanted the a la carte plan since the day Verizon started charging me $2 per month to carry the Yankee games twelve months per year. Of the 700 or so channels that I have, I could happily get by on about 10 of them.

  86. [75] chifi, maybe more accurately, “The issue of net neutrality is best compared to roads. Pretend for minute that all roads are private, and the speed that you are able to travel on those roads is dictated by your destination point of origination, or starting point.”? All roads lead Netflix?

  87. Damn, dropped a tag, supposed to read, “All roads lead from Netflix?”

  88. chicagofinance says:

    Lib: The “premium” channels are sports…..everything else is fungible….essentially if the content desired has no need to be broadcast live (e.g., HBO, Netflix, Disney) then there is always some form of alternative. Regardless of what people think, the cordcutting divide is between people who care about live sports programming and not….if you do not need sports, then FiOS, Optimum et al. are at your mercy…..

  89. Libturd in Union says:

    I NEED sports.

  90. chicagofinance says:

    If I didn’t watch sports and I didn’t have young kids, I would cord cut in a second…..I think cable is a ripoff, but I will defend their right to gouge….their days are numbered…..

    I worked for AT&T and watched an entire switched copper telephony network (i.e. smart network) have its value vaporized in a matter of years………do you see all the switch buildings around? All the copper is worth a shade above scrap now…..

  91. chicagofinance says:

    Functionally useless…..greatest value is for real estate, scrap metal and legacy network support…….built by bondholders of AT&T….or as the Obamunists would say (“you didn’t build that”)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street

  92. jcer says:

    The rub is that the pipe(data) is a commodity, and they should not be able to dictate different rates for different users. In what universe does it make sense that I pay for a data delivery service and somehow they want to charge at both ends. If I am paying for delivery of water from clevland to nj does it matter if the water came from amazon or netflix or someone else? At the end of the day X gallons of water is delivered from clevland to here. The actions of the internet providers is criminal if they want to provide enhanced service to netflix that’s fine by me as long as I have the agreed upon service levels for all content I wish to receive, if I’m paying for a data connection at a certain speed there should not be caps and priorities and they should not purposely try to incapacitate the data providers I use to extort money from them. Phone companies and cable companies are dead, once the content is split from the delivery you can buy exactly what you want from a wide variety of providers, the free market is at work and you cannot be gouged any longer.

  93. jcer says:

    The net neutrality thing is like if gas stations could change the price of gas because of the car you are driving. A chevy pays $3 per gallon and a Mercedes S-Class pays $20 per gallon.

  94. Statler Waldorf says:

    Grim, that’s actually a good neighborhood. Here are more houses in Sugar Land, which is nicer than about 95% of NJ towns, and has solid schools:

    http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Sugar-Land_TX/price-300000-450000/sby-1

    This is top tier housing, for real world prices.

  95. Ragnar says:

    As is often the case I agree with Libturd’s common sense conclusion. (Hoping for government to solve stuff). I worry that his way of thinking was once common, but is now being educated out of future generations.

    For the same reason, I don’t mind “gridlocked” government, when I think about what kind of shit happens when it’s not gridlocked. When both parties agree, it’s an issue that’s either incredibly obvious, or more likely, a future disaster that involves a major waste of money.

  96. Anon E. Moose says:

    ChiFi [92];

    Spot on. Of all the garbage on TV the only programming I can’t replace at nearly any cost is live sports. NHL can be had for ~$180 a season. MLB (dot) TV is cheap per month, but you must have a premium package with a cable provider. By the time you add up the a la carte fees, there’s not much savings left. Especially if the wife and kids start dinging away $2 and episode or $20 a season to get first-run shows instead of last season’s reruns for free.

    I read something about the UK bookmakers offering live streaming internet feeds of any game they take book on — including many US sports — if you have an account with them. They won’t open accounts for US residents.

  97. joyce says:

    I only wish it was even more gridlocked. The REALLY important stuff the neither party likes to discuss out in the open will still pass/get renewed/etc.

    Ragnar says:
    November 19, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    For the same reason, I don’t mind “gridlocked” government,

  98. McDullard says:

    What is a good place to give away a clunker to? It is a ’96 Toyota and it “works” (if we ignore the noise and having to manually use a lower gear for steep climbs, and a host of other things). It also has new tires, so someone may actually find those usable. Truth be told, I haven’t seen anyone driving a worse car (except myself with my first car as a grad student).

    I am thinking of dropping it off at a local mechanic. Any title related issues to be aware of? Habitat for Humanity is one option, but they end up auctioning it anyway…

  99. 1987 Condo says:

    I have donated 3 cars over 20 years to Heritage for the Blind (funny right)…get a form and use as tax deduction if any value, they towed mine …

    http://www.hftb.org/car-donation-program/

  100. Michael says:

    There are more super-rich people in the world today than ever before. According to a new survey from Wealth-X and UBS. The number of people with more than $30 million dollars in assets jumped 6% to hit a new record of 211,275 in 2014. Among them, they hold a staggering $30 trillion dollars. To put that in some perspective, that is nearly twice the size of the entire U.S. economy, which was $16.8 trillion in 2013.

    Those 211,275 people account for .004% of the world’s population and hold 13% of the world’s wealth.

    What may come as a surprise is that nearly two-thirds of those people didn’t make their money the old fashioned way – they made it the hard way. 64% of the world’s ultra high net worth population is self-made. Just 17% fully inherited their wealth.

    How does the self-made crowd protect its wealth? By hoarding cash. The report found the wealthiest .004% hold nearly 25% of their net worth in cash.

    Get the Latest Market Data and News with the Yahoo Finance App

    UBS – which manages money for ultra high net worth (or “UHNW”) clients and would love nothing more than to manage the nearly $30 trillion in assets these individuals hold – says that’s “an extremely high proportion” of assets to hold in cash.

    “UHNW individuals have over two thirds of their wealth in their core businesses,” according to Simon Smiles, Chief Investment Officer for Ultra High Net Worth clients at UBS Wealth Management. “We believe that this could expose UHNW individuals to many unintended risks…”

    While many, if not most, investors won’t shed a tear for the wealthiest .004% losing some of their fortunes, there may be a takeaway for the average investor in diversifying a portfolio.

    “I suppose there’s a lesson for all ordinary people in there, which is even if you’ve only got $30,000, not $30 million, or $3,000, it is worth spreading that money around and not having it in one place,” says Yahoo Finance columnist Rick Newman. “We have had a fairly stable recovery for the last – going on six years, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to last. We will have a downturn at some point. Those people are going to lose some money and you want to lose as little as possible.”

    Where the wealthy are

    North America remains number one when it comes to population and wealth. 74,865 people in North America hold some $10 billion between them, and the United States is home to the majority on both counts. 69,560 ultra wealthy call the U.S. home and hold $9.6 billion. New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles have the highest number of super rich, thanks in part to the technology sector which is where 9% of the wealthiest population made its money, according to the Wealth X/UBS survey.

    Europe has the second-largest concentration of ultra high net worth individuals, followed by Asia, but UBS predicts Asia will overtake Europe by 2027.

    Who they are

    The ultra wealthy are overwhelmingly male. 87% or 183,810 are men, while just 13%, or 27,465 are female.

    As far as education, Harvard is by far the most popular choice for a college education, with 3,130 of the richest individuals attending. The University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Columbia and New York University round out the top five.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-the-wealthiest–004–made-their-money-153602369.html

  101. grim says:

    103 – Want to know something more interesting than that, they purchased it in 1993.

  102. chicagofinance says:

    Go to junk yards/tow pounds and bargain for salvage value….mention the good stuff an have it go north of $500……you will get less than $800 though……but you can walk away with a clear conscience…..the prime salvage doesn’t go beyond 10-12 years, so once you are older than 2003 or so, the interest plummets…..

    McDullard says:
    November 19, 2014 at 4:08 pm
    What is a good place to give away a clunker to? It is a ’96 Toyota and it “works” (if we ignore the noise and having to manually use a lower gear for steep climbs, and a host of other things). It also has new tires, so someone may actually find those usable. Truth be told, I haven’t seen anyone driving a worse car (except myself with my first car as a grad student).

    I am thinking of dropping it off at a local mechanic. Any title related issues to be aware of? Habitat for Humanity is one option, but they end up auctioning it anyway…

  103. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [104] condo

    Decades ago, my frat bro was dating a teacher at the famous Perkins School for the Blind in MA. One night, we were all going out and she had to get something from the school first.

    She was driving down the main driveway through campus and it was speed bumps the whole way. When we went over our 4th or 5th, I quipped “wow, driving for the blind”.

    My liberal, PC frat bro slapped the back of my head but the teacher laughed and said “Oh, the kids will love that one.” We expressed surprise and she said “the kids here love blind jokes. Their favorites are dirty Helen Keller jokes.”

  104. chicagofinance says:

    I think the problem is the “per gallon” part of your analogy. Maybe a better way to describe it is a Chevy pays $3 flat for unlimited gas…..and instead of a Mercedes, Netflix is more of a 36 wheeler mega-truck hauling cross country….and you are asking it to pay $20 flat for unlimited gas……

    jcer says:
    November 19, 2014 at 2:53 pm
    The net neutrality thing is like if gas stations could change the price of gas because of the car you are driving. A chevy pays $3 per gallon and a Mercedes S-Class pays $20 per gallon.

  105. Fabius Maximus says:

    #20 Moose

    No, my biggest issue is that the companies are not allowed to invest in a process that is safer unless they are bound by regulation or in “defense of the brand”. For example if I have to pay $200K to ensure a drilling operation is safe and will not pollute the local aquifer, but the fine is only $100K if I do. The company can only justify the safer operation if the spill would hurt the companies brand. If the company doesn’t care about its brand what stops them poisoning the well.

  106. Michael says:

    Pardon my language, but stuff a dirty tampon in your mouth, Joyce. I was saying this a million times in my debate of what is holding the economy back and was repeatedly called an idiot for thinking this. I said the problem with the economy is that the money is too concentrated at the top (extreme money makes more extreme money). I stated this was a bad thing because it kills demand because these individuals end up hoarding it. This is terrible because it stops money from going to work in the economy. It also takes this capital away from the people who need it most, the poor, and does nothing with it. So why have it?

    I cited that article talking about that billionaire blocks in London and I stated how bad this was. They have so much money that they are just buying properties for the hell of it, not to live in. Do you know how bad this is. They are taking all this capital out of the economy and dumping it into a floor in a building. 90 million in capital wasting away in an apartment that they barely use. Now you know why there is no demand. The capital is in all the wrong places. Funny money for funny assets. The only reason the properties are worth that is because another billionaire comes along with nothing better to do with his money, but spend it wastefully on overpriced real estate created by a market that only involves competition with other billionaires. Such a waste of capital. The wealthy have to give a little % back so we can get this economy going again. Too much capital accrued into too few hands and it’s destroying the economy.

    “How does the self-made crowd protect its wealth? By hoarding cash. The report found the wealthiest .004% hold nearly 25% of their net worth in cash.”

  107. Michael says:

    113- I was called an idiot by you. I was told there is no such thing as hoarding. Well there is your proof. An insane 25% of their wealth in cash.

  108. Fabius Maximus says:

    #67 Eddie Ray

    Who said stock market. The boards of private companies are as responsible to their shareholders as a public one. Maybe you need to dust off the Vellum and send it back.

  109. jj says:

    This is notify you that due to inclement weather our call center will be closing today (11/19) at 5PM ET in order to allow our staff enough time to commute home safely. Our normal business hours, 8:30AM – 8:00PM ET are expected to resume tomorrow. We will keep you updated of any changes.
    Our staff in Buffalo, N.Y., has been operating with reduced workforce as our area continues to endure a record breaking snowstorm that has left much of the area snowbound with an excess of 70 inches of snow and counting. During this time we want to sincerely thank you for your understanding and patience as we continue to work through these conditions until the storm finally passes.

    Lazy bonds in Buff, cant believe a vendor sent me this.

  110. joyce says:

    Idiot,

    “extreme money makes more extreme money” Nah, I think it’s asset bubble inflation gov/central/banks that does that.
    “They are taking all this capital out of the economy and dumping it into a floor in a building.” When they spend money on real estate, where did the money go? To me spending money is the opposite of hoarding.
    “25% of their net worth in cash.” Does cash include all of it’s equivalents? If it does, that’s a little misleading.

  111. Michael says:

    When a billionaire buys a 90 million dollar apartment, he is really just taking the money from one billionaire and giving it to another. How many jobs were created making that 90 million dollar apartment? How many jobs would be created if you took that 90 million to paterson and fixed up some blocks?

    joyce says:
    November 19, 2014 at 5:09 pm
    Idiot,

    “extreme money makes more extreme money” Nah, I think it’s asset bubble inflation gov/central/banks that does that.
    “They are taking all this capital out of the economy and dumping it into a floor in a building.” When they spend money on real estate, where did the money go? To me spending money is the opposite of hoarding.
    “25% of their net worth in cash.” Does cash include all of it’s equivalents? If it does, that’s a little misleading.

  112. Michael says:

    119- Are you understanding how demand is lessened in the economy every time a new billionaire joins the ranks. How much demand is created from the purchase of a 50 million dollar painting? How much demand is created from spending that 50 million at the garden state mall?

  113. Fabius Maximus says:

    #88 ExPat

    or participial (as you pointed out in needs washing). I come from the view that adding “to be ” will actually change the meaning of the phrase. “Needs regulated” is definitive statement were “needs to be regulated” introduces ambiguity. This is more apparent if we substitute the verb need for was.

    It was regulated
    It was to be regulated.

  114. Michael says:

    the more billionaires, the less demand in the economy for goods. It’s really quite simple when you think about it.

  115. joyce says:

    Who built the building? Who designed the architecture? Who designed the interior?
    I think you can ask the same questions if you’re renovating in Paterson.

    Michael says:
    November 19, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    When a billionaire buys a 90 million dollar apartment, he is really just taking the money from one billionaire and giving it to another. How many jobs were created making that 90 million dollar apartment? How many jobs would be created if you took that 90 million to paterson and fixed up some blocks?

  116. jcer says:

    109 Chi, the issue with a 36 Wheel truck is that the extortion is solely based on the cable providers network. Netflix has paid about a bajillion dollars for the bandwidth to bring the content to Comcast, Verizon et. al. what we are really talking about here. Is the ability to not only sell the pipe to the end consumer but then trying to dictate what the end user does by treating traffic differently on their network own network. Everyone is paying for their data why should comcast be able to hold netflix hostage, they are demanding to be paid for something everyone has already paid for?

  117. Michael says:

    You understand a floor worth 90 million is mostly going to the dirt, aka the owner of the property. This is why it doesn’t have the same effect on demand in the economy as spending that in Paterson. Whoever originally owned that property was a billionaire or close to it. So once again this transaction of money never reached the bottom, it just switched hands at the top. Paterson investment will trickle it’s way through the economy back to the top, helping to spur growth.

    joyce says:
    November 19, 2014 at 5:27 pm
    Who built the building? Who designed the architecture? Who designed the interior?
    I think you can ask the same questions if you’re renovating in Paterson.

  118. joyce says:

    Wtf did I respond to our resident retard.
    People with money to spend are spending in places that they believe will bring them the best return. They are SPENDING it (not hoarding it) on financial and real estate assets. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the main culprit.

    “extreme money makes more extreme money” Nah, I think it’s asset bubble inflation gov/central/banks that does that.

  119. jcer says:

    Michael, do you know what goes into building a building, selling a building, etc. Many people are employed and make money. I know quite a few people in that 30 million and above bracket and trust me they spend, many own businesses. The cash cushion is simply insurance, they are leveraged in their businesses, they are using very cheap credit, if anything goes REALLY bad the LLC goes bye bye and they still have the cash cushion. If you have the wherewithal and the credit you’d be a fool not to take advantage. It’s also not cash it is typically invested, you’re a fool if you don’t think the wealthy own boats and houses with servants, most wealthy I know directly for personal purposes unrelated to business employ 3-5 people DIRECTLY.

  120. chicagofinance says:

    Because at a certain point, it becomes a subsidy from Comcast to Netflix, and when there is an arbitrage in the system that is artificially sustained, you are asking for people to exploit it…….technically, the flat fee for access model is not the correct pricing construct, but until services such as Netflix and video came into existence, it wasn’t a major issue. Now, the idea of “cordcutting” is feasible exactly because the flat fee for unlimited data on digital pipe is in place. As other have pointed out…..go back to Econ 101…..if you artificially hold price at below an equilibrium point, demand will overwhelm supply……your are arguing that Netflix is being discriminated against, but my response is that it is abusing the system…..it is not a black & white argument….there are elements of discrimination and elements of abuse……let the market decide who is the greater offender through the passage of time….

    jcer says:
    November 19, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    109 Chi, the issue with a 36 Wheel truck is that the extortion is solely based on the cable providers network. Netflix has paid about a bajillion dollars for the bandwidth to bring the content to Comcast, Verizon et. al. what we are really talking about here. Is the ability to not only sell the pipe to the end consumer but then trying to dictate what the end user does by treating traffic differently on their network own network. Everyone is paying for their data why should comcast be able to hold netflix hostage, they are demanding to be paid for something everyone has already paid for?

  121. joyce says:

    “let the market decide who is the greater offender through the passage of time….”

    Phenomenal advice. As long as the previously granted monopolistic benefits are removed.

  122. joyce says:

    The Net Neutrality Debacle: A Submission To The FCC*

    An open letter to the FCC, transmitted to openinternet@fcc.gov, the FCC’s comment address for their “Open Internet” rulemaking process.

    Dear Mr. Wheeler;

    The recent debate on Open Internet has been entered by stakeholders on all sides. Unfortunately, in my opinion, many of those presenting positions are failing to disclose their true intentions and bias, and in fact are attempting to use the government to force cost-shifting from their firms to others.

    I am a former CEO of an Internet concern, MCSNet, which operated in the greater Chicago area during the early days of the public Internet (1993 – 1998.) The company was sold to Winstar Communications in 1998.

    The issues being discussed today are not new. As the Internet transitioned from a government-funded (primarily National Science Foundation) interconnection for research and education into a privately-funded network accessible to the public, technological change brought many points of friction that served to place competing interests into conflict.

    Internet providers, then and now, sell service to consumers and business interests. These providers either purchase the service they resell or they build private networks and interconnect them at public “meet points” operated by various entities. Many have a hybrid structure where both private network construction and the purchase of transport takes place.

    All providers of Internet service, for cost reasons, oversell. That is, a service provider who has 100 Mbps of aggregate capacity in and out of his or her network will sell far more than 100 1Mbps connections to the public. This is very similar to how roads, water, telephone and electrical systems work. There were approximately 7 million people in the Chicago metropolitan area in the 1990s when I was operating my ISP, but all 7 million of them could not possibly travel on the freeways in the area at one time. My home has 200 amp electrical service but there is not sufficient electrical power available from my power company for myself and all of the other people in my neighborhood to each consume all 200 amps of electrical power at once. I have a connection to the water main at the street and nominally there is 40psi of pressure at my tap, but if myself and all of my neighbors open all of our taps at once the pressure will drop to nearly zero, because the main cannot serve every house in my neighborhood using its full capacity to deliver water at one time. And while we all have cell phones in our pocket these days, and used to have a phone on the wall or a desk in our homes, if everyone tried to make a call at the same time the majority of them would not go through as there is insufficient capacity for everyone to make a phone call at once.

    The same is true for the gas station on the corner. The owner has purchased enough storage to hold a reasonable amount of gasoline, but if I and everyone in my neighborhood tries to buy gas all at once not only will we wait for hours in line to get to a pump he will run out and be unable to serve all of us.

    Please take note a few points in the above examples, however. My electrical use, water use and purchase of gasoline are usage sensitive. That is, there is a natural process by which I am disabused from consuming an unlimited amount of water — the size of my water bill. Likewise, I do not waste electrical power, because I am charged by the kilowatt-hour for it.

    Most Internet access at the consumer level, with the exception today of cellular phone delivery, is unmetered. That is, I pay a flat price no matter how much I use. This model, with minor changes (e.g. a cap on use) is what has evolved in the marketplace as the pricing model preferred by consumers. MCSNet sold service we called “PackRAT” during the era of dial-up modems which was nominally unmetered but had a 200 hour per month cap on it, with a fee per-hour beyond that. This amounted to about 6.6 hours/day of actual use. Since you must eat, sleep and do things other than stare at a computer the cap was not intended to prevent you from using the Internet as you choose but rather to prevent you from abusing the service by locking up a limited (and expensive) resource on our end (in this case, the line and modem you were connected to) when you were not actively using the connection.

    As the Internet has developed there have been people who have sought to try to shift their cost of innovation and content delivery to others. These people often couch their “innovation” in lofty terms, as if they are somehow providing a public service. What they are actually doing is attempting to run a business at a profit. Today’s pet example is Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) but they are hardly the first. Youtube, back in its early days, created somewhat-similar if less-severe issues of the same character we face today.

    Let’s take the Internet “neutrality” position out of cyber-space and into the physical world. We’ll assume that I develop a really innovative movie theater that immerses the viewer in some new way in the film they are seeing. We’ll also assume that this theater only works financially if I can manage to get 10,000 people into it for each showing; the cost of building and operating it is large enough that unless I can amortize those costs over that many people I will lose money and eventually go bankrupt.

    Whose responsibility should it be to construct the roads, infrastructure and parking lots so as to be able to fill that theater every two hours during the business day, efficiently directing traffic into and out of the complex so that I can attempt to make a profit? Should that cost fall on the persons who watch the movies (whether directly via fees on their use of the infrastructure or indirectly via my ticket prices, with the city assessing me for the necessary improvements) or should I be able to force everyone in the Chicago area to pay those expenses, whether they want to watch movies in my theater or not, by convincing the City Government to increase property and gasoline taxes?

    This is the essence of the problem we face today with the Internet. Netflix has developed what many view as a “disruptive technology” through on-demand delivery of movies to the consumer. In order to perform that function they must deliver a multi-megabit/second uninterrupted stream of data to your computer that meets certain specifications. Any failure to deliver this stream, even momentarily, results in your display “stuttering” or stopping entirely.

    But this requirement is dramatically more-stringent than it is for you to watch short video clips on Youtube or to view a web page. There a short interruption in transmission or slowing of the transport results in you waiting a few tenths of a second before your page refreshes or is displayed in full. The same delay while watching Netflix makes their service unusable.

    There are other firms that would like to develop and deliver other services over the Internet with similarly-stringent requirements. Most of these attempts will fail commercially, but some will not — and eventually another “great new thing” will burst onto the scene.

    The problem Netflix and similar services produce is that the technical requirement to deliver their service on an acceptable performance basis to the end customer is dramatically more-stringent than existing requirements for other Internet services. Netflix purports to sell their service to the end customer for $8 per month.

    But this premise, and thus the entire business model Netflix is promoting, is a chimera and unfortunately the common law of business balance (which states that you cannot get something for nothing) has caught up with them.

    When Netflix was first starting the available margin between the engineering for a typical customer connection and what the customer actually used had some slop in it. This is good engineering practice, and what most ISPs do. That is, the ISP models all of their user behavior and says “We sell 20 Mbps service” while knowing full well that the customer bursts to 20Mbps of performance but on average uses a tiny fraction of that — typically less than 10%. The reason is simple: You browse to a web page — even a very graphically-intensive web page — and then read it; during the time you’re reading the usage is zero.

    Enter two new paradigms that break this model: Embedded audio/video advertising and streaming video content.

    Let’s assume that I am a site such as Facebook, and I want to sell video ads to companies. Now when you browse to a Facebook page Facebook “pushes”, without user request, video advertising content to the user’s screen. This dramatically increases the amount of data that the consumer is using and requires that the data be delivered on a highly-stringent technical basis, lest the video “stutter” or fail to play at all. Note carefully that the consumer did not request or benefit from this “video advertising” yet they paid an ISP for the connection to deliver it. Facebook sold the advertising and benefited from it but did not compensate the consumer or their ISP for the higher load on his connection despite imposing that load on him or her.

    The question becomes this: If Facebook delivers a sufficiently-large number of video ads such that it begins to impact network performance and thus forces upgrades of the ISP’s infrastructure who should get the bill for that upgrade?

    If the bill falls only on those who use Facebook and thus view their ads consumers may (rightfully) reject Facebook since the additional cost imposed on them is not present so they can look at a picture of their friend’s cat, but so companies can advertise to them! It is thus strongly in the interest of Facebook to hide this cost from those users by trying to impose it on everyone across the Internet so it cannot be traced specifically to their commercial, for-profit activity.

    The same applies to Netflix. If a sufficient number of people subscribe to Netflix the stringent demands for delivery of Netflix bits to the consumer will force the ISP to upgrade their infrastructure. Who should get the bill for that upgrade?

    If the bill falls only on Netflix customers then their bill will likely more than double; suddenly that “$8/month all you can eat” video streaming service might cost $25 or even $50.

    What is before the FCC today is the fact that the cost increment to deliver what Netflix and Facebook are pushing to the consumer is real; the only point of debate is who pays for it and how.

    Those arguing for “strict” Net Neutrality argue that the ISP should be barred as a matter of law from telling Netflix or Facebook that if they wish to have this level of performance available to them, since it is outside of the engineered and normal realm for all customers, that they should pay for that enhanced delivery — and if they refuse, there is no guarantee their content will display as desired.

    If the “Net Neutrality” argument wins the day it will force ISPs to bill all customers at a higher rate to provision that level of service to them whether they want it or not.

    Why should a customer who has no interest in having high-bandwidth advertising shoved down his throat pay a higher bill because Facebook has decided to force him to watch those ads in order to use their service?

    Why should a customer who doesn’t want to watch Netflix pay a higher connection charge to an ISP because 20 of his neighbors do want to watch Netflix?

    This is the question before the FCC, in short.

    When you boil this down the question before the FCC is whether it is about to implement Communism when it comes to the Internet. Does the FCC, in short, use the government’s ability to forcibly compel the purchase of a service by a customer who doesn’t want it and won’t use it, leaving the consumer with only one option to evade a forced and undesired purchase: Buying no Internet service at all!

    There is a legitimate issue with the Internet today when it comes to “last mile” services. Unlike ISPs who typically can purchase long-haul services from many different providers and enjoy a competitive marketplace for those services consumers do not typically have free and open choice between multiple providers. When I ran MCSNet there were roughly one hundred dial-up and several dozen ISDN provides selling service in the greater Chicago area. We all competed on price and service, and some of us were more successful than others. For business leased-line services in the Chicago Loop we had three competitors available to us; MFS Datanet, TCG and Ameritech. This competition kept prices low and service levels high; during a five year period I enjoyed a roughly 60% decrease in the cost of leased line services to customers where multiple options were available. This resulted in “all-in” monthly recurring cost for T-1 service to business customers falling from approximately $2,000 a month to about $850 over the space of a few years.

    Sadly, that same competition was not available to the average consumer; they had exactly one choice, Ameritech, for their “last-mile” phone service. Thier phone bill over the same time period did not decrease.

    But even in the “business service” area we had occasional problems; the only “neutral” meet point available in the area was the Chicago NAP, run by Ameritech. To get to the NAP since it was on Ameritech’s property you had to buy a circuit from them. I was able to buy circuits of the same speed and character that spanned much larger distances from competitors going to other places at a dramatically lower price, yet I could not use those competitors to reach the NAP. It was Ameritech’s government-granted monopoly position along with its effective monopoly on the so-called “public meet point” that enabled this distortion to exist in the market. Attempts to appeal to the State Regulatory apparatus in this regard (the ICC) were unsuccessful.

    Today the promise of competition for high-speed Internet access is essentially non-existent for most consumers. Most households can only obtain like kind and character high-speed Internet access from one, or perhaps two, companies. In my local area we have a cable company and a phone company but they are not equivalent — DSL service is not of “like kind and quality” to Cable Internet with the disparity being as much as 10:1 in terms of available speed. Virtually all Americans today have an insufficient set of options available to promote effective competition, and as a result we have relatively high costs and relatively poor service compared against other developed nations.

    We should not, however, and indeed must not conflate these two distinct issues. The problem with last-mile access and discriminatory conduct is real, as are the issues with previously-granted monopoly access to rights-of-way that exist across our nation. Not only do those effective monopolies exist but many states and localities have passed ordinances and laws prohibiting municipally-funded or other third-party alternatives from being established, with carrier lobbying groups typically spending large amounts of money to influence that process. That activity facially appears to be a rank violation of The Sherman and Clayton Acts and should be met with investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution.

    Resolving the last-mile monopoly issue is separate and distinct from creating a government mandate that effectively allows established businesses to shift their cost onto others who do not wish to consume their service.

    At the end of the day what those arguing for “Net Neutrality” in the context of today’s submissions are demanding is the ability to use government force to compel the subsidization of a private, for-profit business service.

    The FCC not only has the right, it has the obligation under the Constitution’s demand for Equal Protection as found in the 14th Amendment to reject such entreaties and expose them as a sham argument and blatantly improper attempt to force consumer subsidization of their businesses interests.

    PS: On 5/21 I got back a letter from Chairman Wheeler (presumably a form letter) thanking me for my submission — and including what appears to be a unique response number. I presume this means it was “accepted” into the public record. Good.
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021

  123. joyce says:

    Sure it does. The assets of the people wanting to buy there have gone up four-fold and can spend whatever they want on it… which will cause the sale prices to rise.

    Fabius Maximus says:
    November 19, 2014 at 6:14 pm
    #124 joyce
    That does not necessarily hold.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

  124. Juice Box says:

    Grim – Houston real estate prices are crazy because many of the oil men commute via their small planes to the oil fields for work, there are something like 27,000 general aviation aircraft there, 2nd next to California.

    If you live closer to the fields 500 miles north from Houston like Midland, well this is what a cool 3.5 m gets you, in a city of 150,000 in the middle of nowhere in the Permian basin.

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10310-W-County-Road-150-Midland-TX-79706/98898542_zpid/

    FYI my family member been there since they 1960 is cashing out, this boom is better than the 70s boom in Texas and just in time for her retirement. She already sold their animals, lake house farm and will be cashing out on Midland home ASAP.

  125. Juice Box says:

    re # 117 – “When a billionaire buys a 90 million dollar apartment.”

    Passion Flute, start with the realtor perhaps? They money they make and then spend in their lives at the local supermarket and and in their business further marketing well it isn’t all sunk into stocks and taxes.

    Real Estate isn’t stocks you buy with a single click of your mouse, it is real cash or credit, buying real property.

    By the way you had been treated with kid gloves here and are welcome whether your believe us or not so don’t be an ass, the tampon comment wasn’t warranted. A real man would never make a comment like that. You are better, whether you like it or not you have grown. You owe an apology, need I say more?

  126. Michael says:

    Thanks Fabius Maximus. This is exactly what I’m talking about, but im the idiot.

    “Andreas Panayitou, a property tycoon selling one of the empty mansions, Heath Hall, for £65m, believes The Bishops Avenue is improving and more people are starting to spend more time living there.

    But he admitted that the derelict Saudi properties “really let the road down”. He said he fully agreed with Boris Johnson that London homes were not “blocks of bullion”.

    He said: “You don’t want empty streets and people just parking their money. You need people to live in them or rent them.”

    But he argued against increasing taxes on unoccupied homes, which he said would be an “annoyance” that would make buyers choose Monte Carlo or Milan instead of London.”

  127. chicagofinance says:

    thank you for posting

    joyce says:
    November 19, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    The Net Neutrality Debacle: A Submission To The FCC*

  128. Michael says:

    Joyce, I’m sorry. I’m not a hateful person. You just annoy me by constantly belittling me as if I’m a complete moron, so I took it overboard when I found evidence that I was right after being convinced that I was wrong and an idiot for thinking otherwise. Like I stated a while back, I’m not just reading something and regurgitating it. This theory came about from thinking about the economy and the problems facing it. I came away thinking this. When the balance of billionaires becomes too much, the economy gets sick. It can’t create demand because of the fundamentals at play. Too much money at the top leads to less demand at the bottom, which in turn diminishes investment options, which in turn leads to job cutting to increase profit (efficiencies to drive growth/profit), which in turn leads to less money reaching the bottom leading to reduced demand and then you have a down cycle in the economy as this vicious cycle takes over. Demand is a crucial compenant of our economic system, with weak demand you will continue to have a crappy economy for the majority of the participants meaning less and less opportunities for these people to earn an income, while the top continues to do well. Maybe I’m totally wrong, but this is how I’m understanding it right now.

    Juice Box says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:15 pm
    re # 117 – “When a billionaire buys a 90 million dollar apartment.”

    Passion Flute, start with the realtor perhaps? They money they make and then spend in their lives at the local supermarket and and in their business further marketing well it isn’t all sunk into stocks and taxes.

    Real Estate isn’t stocks you buy with a single click of your mouse, it is real cash or credit, buying real property.

    By the way you had been treated with kid gloves here and are welcome whether your believe us or not so don’t be an ass, the tampon comment wasn’t warranted. A real man would never make a comment like that. You are better, whether you like it or not you have grown. You owe an apology, need I say more?

  129. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    TurdPolish – The past comments here are easy to search. YOU call yourself an idiot. No one else does. We call you other names, but you keep coming back to the word idiot as if you’ve heard it 100,000 times. You won’t resolve your daddy issues here, because your daddy doesn’t post here (unless he is Fab or anon?)

    Pardon my language, but stuff a dirty tampon in your mouth, Joyce. I was saying this a million times in my debate of what is holding the economy back and was repeatedly called an idiot for thinking this.

  130. joyce says:

    I vaguely remembered him writing something very long and in depth a while back. I think it hit on various points being made by several people here. I understand the ‘last mile’ part of the issue a lot better some of the finer technological aspects so I’m glad the last section of his letter touched on that.

    Chicagofinance says:
    November 19, 2014 at 7:28 pm
    thank you for posting

    joyce says:
    November 19, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    The Net Neutrality Debacle: A Submission To The FCC*

  131. Libturd at home says:

    Yup…Great article and explanation on NN. Thanks for the post.

    Of course, the sentence which stuck out for me was the following one, “…with carrier lobbying groups typically spending large amounts of money to influence that process.”

    Even the writer believes in Baa.

  132. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    119 IQMaxMin – You realize you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole, right? You misspelled participle and don’t now what one is, obviously (hint: it’s an adjective created from a verb form ending in “ing”)

    From WV to OH and thereabouts, you will frequently hear “This table needs cleaned.”, “This car needs washed.”, “This industry needs regulated.”, “My IQ needs raised”, “My pregnant sister needs married”, “Minimum wage needs raised.”, “Luanda needs educated.” All of these comments maybe left-leaning, but none of them are right, or grammatically correct, for that matter.

    #88 ExPat

    or participial (as you pointed out in needs washing). I come from the view that adding “to be ” will actually change the meaning of the phrase. “Needs regulated” is definitive statement were “needs to be regulated” introduces ambiguity. This is more apparent if we substitute the verb need for was.

    It was regulated
    It was to be regulated.

  133. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    [136] Delusions of grandeur formal education?

    Joyce, I’m sorry. I’m not a hateful person. You just annoy me by constantly belittling me as if I’m a complete moron, so I took it overboard when I found evidence that I was right after being convinced that I was wrong and an idiot for thinking otherwise. Like I stated a while back, I’m not just reading something and regurgitating it. This theory came about from thinking about the economy and the problems facing it. I came away thinking this. When the balance of billionaires becomes too much, the economy gets sick. It can’t create demand because of the fundamentals at play. Too much money at the top leads to less demand at the bottom, which in turn diminishes investment options, which in turn leads to job cutting to increase profit (efficiencies to drive growth/profit), which in turn leads to less money reaching the bottom leading to reduced demand and then you have a down cycle in the economy as this vicious cycle takes over. Demand is a crucial compenant of our economic system, with weak demand you will continue to have a crappy economy for the majority of the participants meaning less and less opportunities for these people to earn an income, while the top continues to do well. Maybe I’m totally wrong, but this is how I’m understanding it right now.

  134. Toxic crayons says:

    Russian legislation has been amended allowing citizens to carry lethal weapons for self-defense purposes.
    MOSCOW, November 18 (Sputnik) — Russia has updated its legislation to allow civilians to carry firearms for self-defense, according to an amended decree on lethal weapons that appeared Tuesday on the official database of Russian laws and legal documents.

    The previous edition only allowed using licensed firearms on special occasions, such as hunting, sports events and shooting training courses. The new amendment says that firearms can also be carried “for self-defense purposes.”

    Until now, Russian laws permitted the civil population to carry two types of weapons: lethal ones such as shotguns and rifles for hunting and shooting sports, and so-called non-lethal trauma guns firing rubber bullets for personal protection only.

  135. Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:

    [140] expat,

    I’ve long ago decided against fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

    Besides, it isn’t nice to keep picking on the mentally ill.

  136. McDullard says:

    Michael,

    While a 90 million poured into a floor versus all spent in local stores makes a good contrast, the second one is not an option we have once wealth gets concentrated. If there are policies that ensure that wealth doesn’t get highly concentrated, that’s great. But at times, when it gets concentrated, it is better if that money is spent on empty buildings (than getting hoarded in other countries) — at least, some of the money reaches the community via taxes or maintenance.

    S

  137. Fabius Maximus says:

    #129 Joyce

    I’ll give that article a C+. He does make one good point “Resolving the last-mile monopoly issue is separate and distinct ” which is very true.

    The problem with the article can be summed up in his own water pipe analogy. So the water company has a pipe that can deliver 40 PSI to the neighborhood. A factory opens up next door and the factory need 20psi guaranteed. If they don’t get that pressure, their hydroponic crop is ruined. So the water company splits the capacity and maintains 20PSI to the factory without upgrading the infrastructure. So now the neighborhood is fighting over the other 20 PSI. The water company says “pay a premium and I can put you on the same loop as the factory to guarantee 20 PSI”.25% of the homeowners sign up, so the water company pushes the factory side to 30 PSI and leaves 10PSI to cope with 75% of the neighborhood.

    “Those arguing for “strict” Net Neutrality argue that the ISP should be barred as a matter of law from telling Netflix or Facebook that if they wish to have this level of performance available to them, since it is outside of the engineered and normal realm for all customers, that they should pay for that enhanced delivery — and if they refuse, there is no guarantee their content will display as desired.”

    Here is where I really disagree. Ethernet is a loossy protocol. There is a lot of packet retransmission. Why do Netflix peer with Comcast? The closer it can get to the final point the lower the packet round trip time and the less drops and retries. To me that is Netflix’s issue and they should pay for that access. To say that because they need X and Y to make the service work is wrong. That should not be the major driver of the discussion. People have made the case that because streaming is 50% of network traffic it should define the model for the whole. That’s like saying junk mail makes up 50% of the US postal service traffic. Should that define how first class mail is delivered? Bulk mail should have no impact to normal mail delivery.

  138. grim says:

    Use variance passed this evening, one more step forward.

  139. NJGator says:

    Wondering what’s going on in Montklair?

    This coming Friday there is a very special Birthstories workshop happening at Montclair BABY. The goal is for women to leave feeling heard and to examine aspects of their birth stories they have yet to fully address. Those that are still healing from their birth experience will feel validated in their need for support. Those who had positive births will strengthen their stories and sense of ownership. Many women will fall in between. Here’s a link to learn more and pre-register: http://montclairbaby.com/workshops-special-events/#Birth-Story-Circle

  140. Grim says:

    #F@ckthat – they’ll make you eat placenta.

    Come drink whiskey with grim instead.

  141. Fabius Maximus says:

    #140 ExPat

    PARTICIPIAL – of, relating to, or formed with or from a participle

    I will take the criticism that “regulation” would have been a better choice, but I will still defend the structure I used. I understand the regional point you make but disagree with it. http://microsyntax.sites.yale.edu/needs-washed While I might be Irish, the structure is valid.

    As for you getting bent out of shape on Regional Idioms, I will ask if you have you been living in Boston too long?

  142. Fabius Maximus says:

Comments are closed.