Monday, December 08, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Why most minority rights NGOs oppose net neutrality

Zero rating: unlimited Facebook data for cell phones

Yesterday, The New York Times wrote an insightful text about the minority activists' opinions about the net neutrality meme.

Obama’s Net Neutrality Bid Divides Civil Rights Groups
The Grey Lady says that it is usually expected that net neutrality is favored by the far left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party. However, the real-world data suggest something else.

The conservative judge Antonin Scalia has supported this egalitarian concept for a decade. But most of the "civil rights groups" that The New York Times enumerates actually oppose net neutrality:
  1. N.A.A.C.P.
  2. National Urban League
  3. Rainbow/PUSH Coalition [Jesse Jackson]
  4. League of United Latin American Citizens
  5. National Organization of Blacks in Government
and others (45 NGO and professional groups have met and voiced the opposition to net neutrality at a meeting). The article only mentions two pro-net-neutrality groups of a similar kind, ColorofChange.org, a black political coalition, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

Also, 32 Academics sent a letter to the FCC where they oppose Obama-style net neutrality.




My fundamental reasons to oppose net neutrality are clear. It is a form of egalitarianism, a forced distortion of the market that pushes the ISPs to hide certain costs and benefits, risks and profit potential, and other things. They prevent them and Internet services from making experiments. Net neutrality is a method to make high-reliability guaranteed connections impossible. It is a tool to demand unrealistic infinite capacity of Internet connections and to force the consumer to pay for this inefficient usage of the resources. It is a regulation preventing the rich people and companies from enjoying high quality services and the poor ones from having cheap services, and so on, and so on. Net neutrality is way too similar to very many egalitarian policies we would know during communism – like the same bus lines going to every village – which symbolize the striking inefficiencies of communism's ability to use the resources. Net neutrality is "simply not clever".

Freedom works and net neutrality is a way to restrict the people's freedom and a statistically large amount of restrictions of freedom is always bad. That's really where I am coming from.




I don't think that the "civil rights groups" really see the problem from this most general perspective. If they could both understand and admit these principles, they would no longer be the leftists that they mostly are. (If there happens to be a conservative of Libertarian employee of these groups, I apologize to him or her for the insult.) But they may still see some "minor projections" of the principles of freedom that they otherwise want to overlook throughout their lives. Freedom is a very powerful concept and it has many projections and implications, indeed.

It seems rather clear that the "zero rating" plans – a technicality or a seemingly unimportant example – are what decides about the attitude of numerous groups. You may also read DailySignal.com articles by James Gattuso and Michael Sargent.

The point is that many poor non-Caucasian neighborhoods are mostly connecting to the Internet via cell phones. And as you can imagine, ISPs and their consumers can't really afford unlimited mobile data plans. The potential amount of data that people would love to download – if they were allowed to do so – could be unacceptably huge, exceeding the actual capacity of the mobile data network.

However, it's possible for the providers to allow unlimited connections to a particular well-defined server such as Facebook. In particular, Sprint wanted to offer a Facebook-only plan for cell phones – which is a great idea. The stinky U.S. federal government killed this innovative idea. Nevertheless, related plans already exist, anyway. Some mobile data providers have a contract with Facebook or Spotify (but also Wikipedia and Google have used the concept) and they don't count the bytes transmitted between the cell phone owner and those big services into the monthly data cap (in their terminology, these servers get the "zero rating", meaning that their transmitted bytes are multiplied by zero). So you may connect to Facebook or Spotify through your cell phone as many times as you want.

Clearly, this is a textbook example violating net neutrality. All the would-be terrifying talking points of the net neutrality advocates apply to this situation. It is a situation in which "evil" huge Internet services such as Facebook or Spotify may get some extra advantages because they may afford to pay for them. To some extent, they have a monopoly over the unlimited Internet access in some suburbs and monopolies are evil, aren't they?

The problem with this argument is that monopolies that are created from the bottom, naturally, without an oppressive government system that protects them, are good and beneficial for everyone. And the majority of the black and Hispanic "civil rights groups" know that very well. There simply exist neighborhoods for which this unlimited mobile connection to Facebook is a wonderful thing – I would love to have it myself even though I don't really use FB these days. ;-) It can really make a difference to the minorities' connectivity with the modern world.

But it may only work if the amount of data that is transmitted according to this simple plan is bounded from above in the real world. One simply can't allow such a thing for all servers on the Internet. One can only allow it for some of them – and the server's payments are the most natural way to determine the privileged ones. Without this breaking of the symmetry, the cell phone users could have no plans with unlimited mobile data. The de facto monopoly is a great thing for the consumer. The ISP and Facebook or Spotify may benefit, too. But like in all typical examples of the free markets, they benefit because their consumers benefit first (or because they benefit as well).

The opinion that "everything that looks like a monopoly from any viewpoint is evil and has to be wrestled with" may be sold as a slogan to defend the free markets but in reality, the sentiment that drives this thinking is always a deeply rooted anti-market fanaticism. Every sufficiently intelligent policy or operation of a company in the free market resembles a "cartel" or another "anti-competitive measure" or a "symmetry breaking" and our prosperous economies are literally made out of these things!

If you fight against the rights of the companies to choose their business partners and/or to selectively demand different compensations for different kinds of packets or packets sent from/to different companies, you are definitely throwing the baby out with the bath water. Markets can't operate without these basic rights. If you are a net neutrality advocate, then you demonize the elementary acts that capitalism is composed of – and you are helping to effectively disconnect millions of Americans from the Internet, too.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (37) :


reader QsaTheory said...

I am no expert on the subject, but many years ago I wanted to start the wireless television in my country only to find the technology was immature at that time. But also I found that the system was very complicated with heavy government regulations since the stakeholders was as large as the population(in the few areas which was tested). So this business of telecommunication is very complicated, the government is the original seller of the licenses, and makes money on royalties.

http://www.naruc.org/Commissions/default.cfm?s=ia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTIA_%E2%80%93_The_Wireless_Association


reader TronQuixote said...

"The potential amount of data that people would love to download – if they were allowed to do so – could be unacceptably huge, exceeding the actual capacity of the mobile data network.

However, it's possible for the providers to allow unlimited connections to a particular well-defined server such as Facebook."

This doesn't make any sense. And anyway ISPs can trivially impose caps on data usage.


reader Tony said...

Duff's

"To measure the speed of light we need a clock and ruler: if the distance between the notches on our ruler is the distance light travels between ticks of our clock then c = 1 whatever our theory and will remain so until the cows come home."

made me laugh.



OTOH, I'll admit that, for quite some time, I felt unhappy reading physics articles that would declare h or c to be 1 at the beginning.

I felt that I lost an easy way to make quick, back-of-the- envelope estimates and 'visualize' sizes (is it approximately 1 or 1000 meters, 1 year or a millenium?)

This helps my mindshift immensely, thanks!


reader strictly speaking... said...

No. It is already dimensionless in SI units, you cannot set it to anything dimensionful by rescaling your units.


One you have a fully natural set of units, there are no "dimensionful" quantities. Every physical observable you can write down which is spanned by these units can be seen as a dimensionless ratio between the measured quantity and whatever fundamental constants you normalized.


reader OON said...

Well sorry if the word "significant" confused you but the most important implication I see is that one should not be stupid to do physics=) I've meant exactly what Luboš wrote above even thinking about the same picture.
Be careful, velocity of light was fixed in 1983 in the definition of meter.


reader OON said...

>If the kilogram were defined as the mass of one liter of pure water (O16
and H1 isotopes only) at equilibrium and defined temperature and
pressure, say, its melting point and equilibrium vapor pressure, would
it not be well-defined?
Of course that would be rubbish definition. Imagine its practical realization and try to think about all the uncertainties you would have to deal with. At best you may make some etalon liter in the BIPM that would be not better and arguibly much worse than existing etalon.


reader Curious George said...

I am confused. Show me a set of all-natural unit quantities which still yields alpha about 1/137.


reader Tony said...

Well, the government is the biggest monopolist. They are lawyers or are advised by lawyers to hire lawyers to formulate regulations so that you will hire lawyers to interpret them ;-)


reader Gordon said...

Well, yes, it does depend on the definition used. My defn. is basically that we are here so that if the things,laws,constants, which were necessary for our existence were different, we would not be here. Our being here has some constraints on the type of universe we inhabit. In this sense, to me, it is obvious, but also trivial and unnecessary...sort of like saying "We exist, therefore, we exist."


reader Gordon said...

Magueijo isn't just a crank, he is first rate assh@le...
I read "Faster Than the Speed of Light", and thought it almost total crap (I actually bought it) - that also gratuitously insulted famous real physicists. The narcissism stank.
Now, after spending 25 years in England, and "acting" as a professor at Imperial College, he has pusillanimously published a screed only in Portuguese dissing the English in his incredibly rude and arrogant way. If he hates the UK as much as he says, he is a real martyr staying there instead of sampling the glories of the Portuguese utopia.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/20/who-said-britons-were-drunk-dirty-and-deplorable-joao-magueijo-portuguese-writer


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear slow reader, could you please be a little bit more specific about what doesn't make sense to you? Without that, it is hard to help you.


Right, ISP can impose - and effectively have to impose - caps on overall data usage, and that's why such a contract becomes unusable for usage one would depend upon. The zero rating is a way to make the contract usable.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Johannes, universal constants (dimensionful or dimensionless ones) are *always* parameters that deform one theory into another.


What's special about hbar,c,k etc. is that they are unavoidable in quantum mechanics, relativity, statistical mechanics which are very important, game-changing layers of our theoretical description of the world.


But even if they were not this important, it would be possible to set them equal to one - there could just be several comparably important choices of the units.


So the frequency of alpha' in literature doesn't really dictate "confidence" in string theory but rather the omnipresence of alpha' in fundamental equations.


And the main problem with your claim is that alpha' isn't a fundamental constant in all of string theory - it's only special in perturbative string theory. It's the inverse tension of fundamental strings which are just "some objects" - among many other objects that are democratically equally important, if one adopts a general nonperturbative attitude.

So even people 100% confident in string theory are often writing alpha' explicitly because it's not the only "similarly important" parameter with the same units (of inverse area) in string theory. Many string theorists would say that some Planck units are more important even in string theory because it's a theory of quantum gravity and gravity is more general than perturbative string phenomena.


Do you agree?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Curious George, in the natural units used in quantum field theory, with 1=c=hbar=epsilon_0, the fine-structure constant's formula simplifies to


alpha = e^2 / 4*pi


and this ratio is equal to 1/137.036. It's true in all other (rationalized i.e. equally treating the 4*pi issues) unit systems.


If you tried to make "one more choice" e.g. by setting e^2/4*pi = 1, then you get an inconsistent system because you will be able to derive that 1 = 1/137.036. But if you only impose the right number (or smaller number) of choices on the constants, you will get consistent units!


reader Luboš Motl said...

I just wanted to write an identical reply to Curious George as Tony wrote.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Gene, I still don't understand what you dislike about OON's comment.


Distinguishing what is being measured from the measurement - your sentence - is exactly what his comment was about, wasn't it? He says that the measurement will yield a changing number of kilograms (because 1 kg is defined as the mass of a prototype whose surface is evaporating or absorbing something) even though nothing is really changing about the laws of physics or the measured object.


The liter of water was informally used before the prototype. But I am eager to make a bet, 10-to-1, that you couldn't reproduce the existing accuracy of the platinium-iridium prototype with water.


First of all, if you wanted to actually separate 1 liter of water, you would probably need some metallic "hole" (decimeter times decimeter times decimeter) and the concave metal would already have all the uncertainties that the prototype has. However, you would add many more uncertainties because water is more complicated and stable than platinium and iridium.


You cleverly pointed out the isotopic composition. But to get the pure O16 and H1 in the liter is a serious problem. Naturally, deuterium is 0.0001 i.e. 0.01% of the hydrogen. You want to use pure hydrogen-one water so you have to reduce the concentration of deuterium from 0.0001 to less than 0.00000005 in order to have the 50-parts-per-billion accuracy achieved with the platinium-iridium.


Take the complications with the measurement of the right temperature and pressure. You would need to measure those - and make them constant all over the "water prototype" - with the accuracy exceeding "one part per million", too. At this level, you even run into limitations of statistical physics because the pressure inevitably oscillates due to the molecular composition of matter.


I love you but your definition would mean to return the accuracy of physics from the 21st century to the 18th century. ;-) But I still think that your disagreement with OON has nothing to do with this debate water-vs-platinium and I don't understand this disagreement at all.


reader bugged said...

You are essentially quashing the right for internet startup companies to exist and compete with cash rich giants by opposing net neutrality . " Right to choose whom to do business with " VS " Right for new companies to be born and be given a common playing field " . Latter beats the former.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Yours is nothing else than the standard despicable communist demagogy.


If someone (individual or company) has more money than someone else, he or she or they can clearly afford to buy more things, try other investments and transactions not available to others.


If someone wants to have the most expensive villas in Hollywood, he must first earn the money for that. There is no "right" to have villas in Hollywood (without the money), and in the absolutely analogous way, there is no "right" to have the highest-priority, speediest connection to all services or clients on the Internet.


You don't want to "level" the playing field. You want to to cut the heads of everyone who is taller than others and reduce the Internet to the common denominator.


reader Johannes said...

Yes, I should have added a caveat about perturbative nature of alpha', although it might have come out a bit differently: I still have dreams that there's one formulation that is more fundamental than the others, which will tell us which units to really choose. Or do you think this is forever excluded?


reader Dream Chaser said...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg


What are you describing is basically a first step in this chart (look under "the social") - converting internet to a glorified cable TV. This would mean the end of internet innovation for new startups competing with established players. No thanks, slightly cheaper access to some servers is not worth it. Pushing for government built optical broadband to every village (like electricity or other basic utilities) is a far better solution.


reader Luboš Motl said...

An ISP would have to be stupid to forbid the user from accessing "generic" (i.e. all) websites on the Internet because that would make the value of its service (the money it can receive from the consumers) much lower.


I won't be buying a crippled service that bans something completely if I can get services that allow me to get everywhere.


On the other hand, if there were some special advantages of Internet plans that would allow me a faster connection to a list of servers, or whatever, of course that I could perhaps find a product that would suit me better than what I have now. What do you dislike about that?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Johannes,


there are surely ways to formulate string theory using natural units where everything is dimensionless.


I don't see a reason to think that one of the parameterizations of the variables is much more natural than others - in the most general context.


If you consider compactifications to 4 (or another number) large dimensions, and you want units that are U-duality invariant, you obviously want to use 4-dimensional Planck units. They're defined by physical operations that may be performed in the 4-dimensional space, regardless of the microscopic description of the extra dimensions etc.


If you want to link your units to a particular description of the extra-dimensional physics, then I think that the very point of string dualities is that it is *not* true that there is only one "very good" description. There are many descriptions that are equally good. That's what the dualities mean, right?


S-duality in type IIB means that alpha' associated with the tension of F1-strings is as fundamental at the nonperturbative level as the dual scale associated with the tension of D1-branes, for example, whose tension goes like


1/ (g_s alpha').


You may also work with the geometric average of these two which is the 10D Planck scale. The latter is a "compromise" and is more natural in some sense.


Because of the spirit of dualities etc., I surely don't believe that there is one "canonical" coordinate system to choose on the "whole" configuration space of string theory fields (or the landscape). The landscape is very complicated and has many components and in each of them, a different choice of coordinates may be simpler. The choice of coordinates is just a slight generalization of the choice of units. There's no "unique" answer. I think that this lesson is not new in any way - it's really the point of general relativity that there are no preferred coordinates.


LM


reader Omerbashich said...

"Terry Quinn (...a director of the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures but who insanely believes
that a theory will once calculate the numerical value of G in SI units)." His 2014 experimental value of 6.6754... actually does match my 2005-2006 theoretical value of 6.6750..., approaching it in fact INSANELY close since his last experiment of 2001 (fig.3 in his PhysRevLett paper): http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608026 (p.18)


reader Omerbashich said...

"Terry Quinn (...a director of the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures but who insanely believes
that a theory will once calculate the numerical value of G in SI units)." His 2013 experimental value of 6.6754... actually does match my 2005-2006 theoretical value of 6.6750..., approaching it in fact INSANELY close since his last experiment of 2001 (fig.3 in his PhysRevLett paper): http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608026 (p.18)


reader TronQuixote said...

Dear slow Lubos, 'well-defined' is ill-defined, at least for any website with media (such as Facebook). Usage goes as the user, not as the resource.

Suppose I am an ISP and I have a budget of 1 terabyte-hour every month I can supply (how serious the problem of bandwidth limitations actually is is another matter, but since at least American ISPs are so slow to update their networks my naive guess is not very) to all my users every month. I can still sell plans in a data-agnostic way, in units of megabyte-seconds, so customers who require more internets can buy them with more money. The price can then be set by demand + scarcity, as usual.

More generally, it is irresponsible to discuss net neutrality in the framework of 0th-order capitalism, where one of the main assumptions is that the number of sellers tends to infinity. In the American reality, we are subject to a cabal between Time Warner and Comcast, and soon maybe a Time Warner-Comcast monopoly. So if the ISPs were to use their net neutrality power to unfairly censor content, we can't just switch to a different provider whose fee structure is based on more purely economic motives. Suppose the CEO of Comcast befriends Lee Smolin and becomes convinced there is trouble with physics; he decides to solve it by charging users $5 each time they access TRF. This is exactly the sort of power that stands to be had in this net neutrality battle, and it is a lot of power to give to the people whose job it is to repair the cables in my backyard when squirrels gnaw through them.


reader Luboš Motl said...

You're stupider than our cat if you believe that the numerical value of G in SI units may be calculated from the first principles.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Another idiot - if it were not yourself - wrote the same bullšit to me on Twitter.

I wrote that if an ISP introduced such a policy, the company would go bust within a week. Lee Smolin is a mental cripple but it doesn't mean that CEOs of ISPs are idiots, too.


By unnecessarily filtering or breaking the connection to random servers, they would clearly make their product much less valuable, if not worthless. That would instantly damage their profits.


Why should a sane person believe in similar conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theories in which the CEOs are motivated to be harming their companies while getting no profit from it? It's not just about one CEO. The CEOs are being monitored by boards and stockholders and lots of other people.


One may befriend a Smolin-like crank and nobody cares but when the company starts to lose millions or millions of customers, be sure that someone will care.


As a rational person, I am about 1,000 times more afraid that an imbecile promoting net neutrality will tell Obama to get upset for my pointing out that Obama is an idiot, and my website will be banned everywhere just for pointing out that net neutrality is a food for hardcore morons and Obama is its degenerated symbol. Such a ban would be 1,000 times more likely than any conspiracy theory you have written because it's really the point of net neutrality - to make all the Internet the same. It is a tool to ban certain things *really everywhere* because the very point is to strip the ISPs from their freedom to offer loopholes.


Otherwise I am greatly offended by every single sentence in your idiotic rant. Time Warner and Comcast are the evil ones who own everything. And two is effectively equal to one.


Give me a break, idiot. I have spent 10 years in the U.S. but most of the time, I had Internet services that had nothing to do with either of the companies, and I had many of them, including Verizon, Cingular / AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. So your list of "only two" providers is clearly a lie.


But even if I only had 1 private free ISP who offers the services in one town, it would still be a better and freer selection than 1 universal ISP whose duties are dictated by an Obama-linked asshole in the government.


LM


reader Omerbashich said...

Well, it has been obviously. I mean, who should we believe - our eyes and brain, or just the brain? Be careful what you answer: brains do all sorts of tricks on us, just look at religion. So let me put it this way: meoooow for all that I care, as math has difficulty lying. By the way, can you please delete this double-post and transfer this fine exchange under the previous post? I labeled Terry's value as 2014 instead of 2013, sorry...


reader Karel Strašný said...

I have no objection to FB-only connection as long as nobody calls it an "internet connection".

But even then there is a problem. What would happen when FB starts working as a proxy???
This is already available now when you consider google translate... You are accessing Google's servers, you can use HTTPS, so nobody can analyze the content and retreive content of any page.

Net neutrality does not restrict freedom it is actually one of the freedoms on the internet. If you try to remove this freedom people will try to work around it, possibly creating even more traffic in the process.


reader Omerbashich said...

Well, it has been obviously. I mean, who should we believe - our eyes
and brain, or just the brain? Be careful what you answer: brains do all
sorts of tricks on us, just look at religion. So let me put it this
way: meoooow for all that I care, as math has difficulty lying. By the
way, can you please delete this double-post and transfer this fine
exchange under the previous post? I labeled Terry's value as 2014
instead of 2013, sorry...


reader Omerbashich said...

Well, it has been obviously. I mean, who should we believe - our eyes and brain, or just the brain? Be careful what you answer: brains do all sorts of tricks on us, just look at religion. So let me put it this way: meoooow for all that I care, as math has difficulty lying. By the way, can you please delete this double-post and transfer this fine exchange under the previous post? I labeled Terry's value as 2014 instead of 2013, sorry...


reader Omerbashich said...

Well, it has been obviously. I mean, who should we believe - our eyes and brain, or just the brain? Be careful what you answer: brains do all sorts of tricks on us, just look at religion. So let me put it this way: meoooow for all that I care, as math has difficulty lying. By the way, can you please delete this double-post and transfer this fine exchange under the previous post? I labeled Terry's value as 2014 instead of 2013, sorry...
-
I'm trying to post this reply but it keeps disappearing. Early Christmas censorship?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Why should no one have the right to call it the Internet connection? It clearly *is* a connection to the Internet.


No one owns the trademark "the Internet", right? After all, the meaning of the phrase has already specialized. When we say "the Internet", 99+ percent of the people interpret it as the World Wide Web and things going through the http protocol only - even though the "Internet" as previously understood contains dozens of other ports and protocols. ;-)


No one protests that HTTP has monopolized the Internet to the extent that HTTP and Internet became synonymous. If an FB-only connection became similarly successful as HTTP, Facebook itself could become the new meaning of the word Internet, couldn't it?

I am pretty sure it won't happen but I don't understand your "moral disgust" about such a scenario. What's wrong about that? Internet is something that connects computers through a network. Facebook does so. A Facebook-only connection may be called the Internet, too.


It seems totally crazy, 1984-like if you claim that net neutrality is "freedom". By the very admission in every other sentence of the advocates, it is a project to restrict the freedom of the ISPs, so how can you dare to sell this type of regulation as an extension of freedom? It's insane demagogy and you realize that, don't you?


It's not clear to me what's your point about Facebook proxies. There may be and there are proxies in various domains, right? And if there were FB-only Internet plans, the providers would almost certainly disable these proxies for the consumers so that the plan would be *really* FB-only, right?


reader Karel Strašný said...

I suppose that the "internet trademark" is just a joke, right? I mean nobody owns a trademark "butter" and yet the product is clearly defined...
Internet means "between networks" not "between me and FB". And it fits this definition basically from the beginning.
So that is for the naming convention and why I think that "internet connection" should remain reserved for traffic neutral connection.

As for freedom you have multiple viewpoints.
ISP: Wants to same money on the infrastructure (perfectly valid reason).

End-user: Wants to connect to services (might care for net neutrality or might not to depending on the user).

Possible competition of any well established service: Cares great deal because e.g. if FB-only plans are created you are effectivly supporting monopoly environment in social network market.

My conclusion is that abolishing net neutrality will actually remove some natural market regulation and it supports creation of monopoly-like market.

And as I have written somewhere else the solution is to stop lying about capacity offered and guaranteed by the ISPs.

As for proxies: e.g. Google-only plan means access everywhere through translate.google.com...
Just an unconfortable version of semirestricted access that generates more traffic.


reader Omerbashich said...

Well, it has been obviously. I mean, who should we believe - our eyes and brain, or just the brain? Be careful what you answer: brains do all sorts of tricks on us, just look at religion. So let me put it this way: meoooow for all that I care, as math has difficulty lying. By the way, can you please delete this double-post and transfer this fine exchange under the previous post? I labeled Terry's value as 2014 instead of 2013, sorry...
-
I'm trying to post this reply but it keeps disappearing. Early Christmas censorship?


reader Luboš Motl said...

My position doesn't require any "robust competition". Free markets produce the right amount of competition that optimizes things.


If you think that the graphs show a lower number of competitors, it is because you are defective, and not the ISP market.


reader Omerbashich said...

Well, it has been calculated obviously. I mean, who should we believe - our eyes and brain, or just the brain? Be careful what you answer: brains do all sorts of tricks on us. So let me put it this way: meoooow for all that I care, as math has difficulty lying. By the way, can you please delete this double-post and transfer this fine exchange under the preceding post? I labeled here Terry's value as 2014, instead of 2013...
-
I'm trying to post this reply but it keeps disappearing. Early Christmas censorship?


reader Leo Vuyk said...

SUB-Quantum Architecture as a base for Matter, Space and Time?

I am interested in the possible FORM and FORM
transformation aspects as information medium in micro- and macro physics, as a
realistic search for the origin of Matter Space and Time.
I believe that OUR COMPLEX WORLD can not be
described by FORMULAS ALONE. WHY? Because we don't know why the universe is as
it is. An example: “Finetuning”: Why are the
"fundamental constants" constant? My suggestion: because the sub-quantum
FORM of particles and the Higgs vacuum lattice have a certain form and play a game with us..

So I designed simple convertible shapes for real
QUANTUM particle information use.
At the same time I realized that black holes should
also have some nuclear form and as a result I found that dark matter is related
to black holes and Higgs particles have only energetic mass inside an
oscillating Higgs vacuum lattice.
Multiverse based mirror symmetric consciousness
(entanglement) is assumed to be the base for all particle- wave -and human
guidance or wavefunction collapse.
SEE: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93308747@N05/?details=1
and: http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93308747@N05/15306972174/in/photostream