Android, iPhone, and Maemo

I noticed this post via David Z's shared items. That post had a huge omission. It didn't mention Maemo by Nokia.

The two main choices for consumer cellphones are Android and the iPhone. There's another interesting choice not commonly mentioned, Maemo by Nokia.

As a knowledgeable computer user, I'm offended by Android and the iPhone. They are "locked down" environments. The user doesn't get root access to their own phone. You may only run/install applications that the gatekeepers Apple/Google let you run.

(You can sell Android apps without going through Google. You don't have root access on the phone, so there are restrictions. The user must be pretty knowledgeable to install an Android app that wasn't published by Google. This article discusses a tethering app that was banned by Google; the user can still buy and install it, but it's much harder without Google's blessing.)

You can only get root access on Android or iPhone if you hack the phone. If you take a strict interpretation of restrictive copyright law, it's illegal to hack your phone or tell other people how to hack their phone.

Is the BlackBerry an open OS? I believe not, but I'm not sure. The BlackBerry is more open than Android and the iPhone. You can publish/sell your own applications without approval from RIMM. However, I don't think you can overwrite the OS.

With Maemo, you can overwrite the OS and install whatever OS you want. You get full root access to your own phone, if you want. You can install whatever you want, without getting permission from a gatekeeper.

The app store for the iPhone has been a huge cash cow for Apple. They get a cut of 30% of all sales. You can't sell an iPhone application without approval from Apple. You can publish an Android app without approval from Google, but the user still can't get root access on their own phone. The non-Google-approved app may only be installed by a skilled user.

Apple has vetoed certain applications. Notably, they are refusing to support Flash, an aggressive move against Adobe. Apple has vetoed VoIP applications, because it's sometimes cheaper to make a VoIP call than use the phone's voice package.

This article was interesting. Apple removed apps that help you find free wi-fi. There are many apps that Apple has vetoed or later censored/removed.

Apple vetoes applications that compete with native iPhone features. This frustrated the authors of some early popular apps. Version 2 of the iPhone included a feature that competed with their app, and Apple banned their app. These authors wound up doing free market research for Apple.

Apple takes weeks or months to approve an app. This makes it hard for developers to get feedback from users. If you release an app with a bug, then the bugfix has to go through the same lengthy approval process.

Sometimes, Apple demands an app remove a feature. In that case, the automatic "upgrade" removes the feature and you can't go back to the old version.

Given all these restrictions, you'd have to be a fool to invest in iPhone or Android development. You're subject to the whims of a large corporation. All it takes is the arbitrary decision of some executive, and you've lost your investment.

Why invest in development when someone else can arbitrarily cut you off? Android/iPhone apps are trendy right now, but there's no guarantee either will exist 5 years from now.

With Windows development, I don't need permission from Microsoft to sell something. That's not true with the XBox, where only Microsoft-approved games may be sold. One reason the Atari 2600 lasted so long was that 3rd parties could develop games without permission from Atari. Such actions are illegal now. Even if I cracked the XBox encryption, copyright law makes it illegal for me to sell an XBox game without Microsoft's approval.

When last looking for a job, I noticed lots of fools looking to hire Android/iPhone developers. They were only interested in hiring people with 1+ year of experience and who already had written a best-selling app. Amusingly, they also wanted to hire people for "equity only" (i.e. free).

It seems that it's a waste of time learning iPhone or Android development. They're trendy now, but there's no guarantee they will be around 5 years from now. No mobile developer has had the "user lock-in" like Microsoft has had with their desktop monopoly.

I remember that, in 2000, everyone was encouraging me to learn Palm Pilot development. Palm OS was the hot thing, and definitely worth a career investment! My current languages C++/SQL/PHP should be around awhile.

I'm reluctant to invest time learning Android or iPhone development. Everyone says there's a shortage of mobile developers. That doesn't match my experience when interviewing. Everyone is demanding 1+ years of experience, *AND* they expect people to work for free.

If there really were a shortage, employers would be willing to hire competent people without an exact experience match, and pay them with cash instead of worthless equity. It seems that the mobile development environment is "trendy" and attracting fools.

If there's a battle between an open standard and a closed standard, then the open standard usually wins. The FCC is changing the rules for telecom corporations. They will be forced to support *ANY* phone on their network, and sell "data only" packages. Currently, cell phone corporations decide what phones are allowed and not allowed on their network. This allows them to force users onto crippled environments like the iPhone and Android.

Unlike the iPhone and Android, Maemo is an open OS. The user can get full root access to their phone, if they want. In a battle between an open system and a closed system, the open system usually wins. I looked, but you can't buy a Maemo phone for Verizon yet. My LG env Touch is decent, but I wish it had a better text editor. This is good enough for now, and better than what I had before. Now, I can write blog drafts on the subway. The 300 character limit is *ANNOYING*, but it's still usable.

US Civil War Retcon

I really liked this post on Anarchy in Your Head. "The US Civil War was fought over slavery!" was a historic retcon. The US Civil War was actually fought over taxes.

The Southern states were mostly agricultural. They did not want import/export tariffs on trade with Europe. The Northern states were mostly industrial. They wanted protective import/export tariffs. High tariffs forced the Southern states to sell their cotton to Northern factory owners, and buy goods from Northern factory owners.

President Lincoln's justification for fighting the US Civil War was "The Southern states aren't paying taxes. I'm going to use violence to force them to pay." He blockaded the ports to collect import/export tariffs. His army invasion was to collect other Federal taxes, including the capitation (equal tax per person).

Viewed this way, the Southern states were the heroes. They were refusing to pay unfairly high taxes. They withdrew their consent for a government that no longer represented them.

The Southern army made some severe tactical mistakes during the Civil War. They tried to aggressively invade the North, instead of defending their home territory. If the South had focused 100% on defense, then they probably would have won a war of attrition. One problem is that the Southern generals were pro-State brainwashed by military academies in the North.

Also not mentioned in "Anarchy in Your Head", President Lincoln arrested newspaper editors in the North who criticized the Civil War.

Once the Southern states walked out of Congress, there no longer was a quorum. If you take a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution, Congress and the President no longer had authority do anything. President Lincoln issued executive order #1, to get Congress back in session and keep the Federal government operating. His only other choice was to give up and go home.

"The US Constitution is a voluntary contract!" is a lie. The Southern states tried to withdraw their consent, but violence forced them to remain. The original Constitution was not ratified by an overwhelming popular vote. It only was ratified by a thin margin. In some states, multiple votes were required, it only passed by a thin majority, and some favors/threats occurred in order to secure ratification. There is no provision for individuals to directly ratify the Constitution or Amendments.

"Does a State have the right to withdraw consent for the Federal government?" was not settled by a careful debate of the issues. It was settled the way all important political issues are settled, with violence.

Most other countries abolished chattel slavery at the same time as the USA, without a civil war. Political insiders realized that tax slavery was more effective than chattel slavery. Give people their 40 acres and a mule! Via property taxes, the slaves don't own those 40 acres anyway! It makes no difference if they're paying huge taxes! The master gets his tribute, whether you're a tax slave or a chattel slave.

There's another interesting Civil War footnote. The 14th Amendment allegedly abolished slavery. The US Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment as allowing limited liability incorporation and corporate personhood. The Supreme Court has cited the 14th Amendment 10x more often to justify rights of corporations, compared with justifying the rights of individuals. Limited liability incorporation is evil. Limited liability incorporation allows State insiders to exert power and control wealth, without any accountability. The corporate executive/employee says "I'm just doing my job!", and that excuses almost all sorts of dishonest and negligent behavior.

Until 1861, the US Constitution was presumed to be a voluntary contract among sovereign states. This placed a limit on expansion of Federal government power. After the US Civil War, a lot of severe abuses started accelerating. For example, the National Bank Act, passed during the Civil War, encouraged dishonest behavior by the banksters. Combined with limited liability incorporation and other bad laws, crises were engineered which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

The US Civil War is one example where State schools act as brainwashing centers, rather than spreading the real truth. I feel cheated that I never heard about Lysander Spooner or Bastiat in school.

Paying an Underwater Mortgage

I saw an article that contained a big error. Suppose you "own" a house with a mortgage. (Via property taxes, nobody in the USA actually fully owns their house.) Due to the declining housing market, your mortgage is worth more than the value of your house.

Suppose you have a job, and can still afford your mortgage payment. Should you abandon your house?

The correct answer is "not necessarily". It's a difficult calculation. True inflation is much greater than interest rates. The interest on your mortgage may be 6%, but true inflation is 20%-30% or more.

Let's use a specific example. Suppose your mortgage is for $500k and your house could be sold for $400k right now. You have equity of -20%. You owe $100k.

Suppose your mortgage has 6% interest, but housing prices will rise by 16%, a reasonable assumption if true inflation is 20%-30%. Assume that you can afford your mortgage payment. After 3 years, you'll have positive equity again. Inflation bailed you out.

This is the same trick that the banksters use. Due to the recession/depression, most/all large banks were technically insolvent. If forced to liquidate at current market prices, they would have been unable to pay off their creditors/depositors.

Via "level 3 accounting", banks were able to keep operating as long as they could meet interest payments. Bailout money from the Federal Reserve and the Federal government eased this process. The banksters borrowed at 0.25% while inflation is 20%-30%+.

The banksters were bailed out by inflation. If you keep making payments on an underwater mortgage, you're using this trick, albeit on a smaller scale. You don't have as high leverage as a bankster, but it works in your favor.

If you own a house with an underwater mortgage, there's an implied call option. If the price of the house rises, you profit from leverage. If the price of the house tanks further, then you default.

If the value of the implied call option is worth more than the cost of the mortgage payments, then you should keep paying your mortgage (if you have the cash or a job). It's an even better deal if you consider the transaction costs associated with buying a house and the cost of renting another place to live.

One negative factor is property taxes. Under normal circumstances, that's only 1%-2% of the value of the house. However, in some cities there were a lot of property tax defaults, combined with a crashing housing market. This led to higher property taxes for everyone else.

State parasites demand the same amount of tax booty, even while the slaves are suffering a recession. Under such circumstances, the property taxes owed are more than the value of the house. This makes the value of the house $0. In effect, the State has stolen your house via property taxes.

Property taxes are a huge drag on property "ownership". There are reasons to not default on your mortgage, besides the implied call option.

• You might not be able to get another mortgage/house if you default.
• You trash your credit rating if you default.
• You still have to live somewhere. If you abandon your house, you'll have to pay rent.
• It's your home and you don't want to move.
• There are costs associated with moving.
• Even if you could buy another home, you would have to pay another real estate agent's commission, another set of closing costs, another set of mortgage financing fees, etc. There's a lot of fees when you buy a house.
  

Summarizing, it might be in your rational self-interest to keep paying an underwater mortgage, if you're employed and can afford it. There's an implied call option, because the price of your home will probably rise faster than the interest rate on the mortgage.

If you do own a home, you shouldn't keep refinancing every time housing prices rise. "Always maximize your leverage!" only works for the banksters, who are "too big to fail" and always get a bailout. If you're too greedy and you're a non-insider, then you'll lose everything during the next recession/depression. You never know how long the recession will last and how severe it will be. As a non-insider, it's too risky to max out your leverage. Use leverage when buying your home, but keep it mortgage-free once it's paid off.

If you own a house with an underwater mortgage, it isn't necessarily in your rational self-interest to default. This assumes you have a job or can otherwise pay your mortgage. The interest rate on the loan is less than expected inflation, which makes it potentially profitable to keep paying your mortgage even if it's more than the current market value of your house. It's a tricky and complicated calculation.

Censorship on Yahoo

This post on Yahoo was interesting. Notice there is no comments section. Look at other posts. They do have a comments section.

I noticed this via Google Search (searching for "taxation is theft").

Mar 10, 2010 - taxation is theft . pass it on . GoldenBoys. 205 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. ...

Someone posted "Taxation is theft!" It got a lot of upvotes (205!). Then, someone at Yahoo purged the comments section. Where the comments section would be, it says "We apologize. An error has occurred. Please try again." It seems weird that comments don't work on that post, but work on other posts.

This is a common mainstream media censorship tactic. If a forbidden idea starts spreading in the comments section, purge the comments section or delete the comments section.

Some censor is probably purging the forbidden comments, and then putting back up the comments section. They might even add "Taxation is theft" as a forbidden phrase in their spam filter.

I'm surprised that Yahoo would do such an evil thing.

It's always interesting to catch State thugs redhanded committing censorship.

(Look quickly. It may be back up by the time you read this.)

Constance McMillen - An Example State Mind Control Trick

This story is very interesting. A high school girl wanted to take another girl as her date to the prom. The other girl was going to wear a tuxedo instead of a dress. The school objected.

The girl convinced the ACLU to back her. There was probably going to be a lawsuit, or the school bureaucrats would have to cave to the girl's wishes.

The school bureaucrats/thugs retaliated by canceling the prom.

McMillen almost didn't return to school Thursday for fear of retribution by her classmates who had just lost their prom because of her.

This is a very clever mind control trick. Now, the girl is the villain.

The other students think "We lost our prom because of Constance McMillen!" rather than "The school bureaucrats are scumbags!"

The school bureaucrats are protected by sovereign immunity. Constance McMillen won't be able to sue them directly. Even if she does sue the government and win, the cost will be paid by everyone else via higher taxes. Suing the government is pointless. Besides, the school bureaucrats can say "It's within our personal professional discretion to cancel the prom!", even though everyone knows they're retaliating against Constance McMillen.

The school bureaucrats are treating the school like it's their own private for-profit business. If I owned a dance hall and made a "women may not dress like men" rule, that's my personal choice (although I'd probably be sued anyway). School bureaucrats act like they own the school. State property is technically unowned.

If one member of a group does something wrong, then all members of that group are punished. This is a very important State mind control trick.

As another example, if police suspect someone of a crime, then they and all their friends are arrested. This encourages them to rat on their friend.

A handful of people in Afghanistan organized a terrorist attack. Therefore, everyone living in Afghanistan and Iraq is subject to a war and hostile occupying army.

As another example, high ranking Al Qaeda members are most vulnerable when they're with their families. US troops attack them while they're with they're families, murdering their relatives as well. In effect, US policy is "If you're a member of Al Qaeda, then we'll also murder your family."

If someone in Iraq or Afghanistan assaults/kills a US soldier, then all villagers are assaulted/kidnapped/murdered. Superficially, this prevents crime. In reality, such behavior merely inspires US hatred in the next generation of terrorists.

All these examples have one element in common. The person abusing their power has a State-backed monopoly.

"If there's a crime, punish the group and not the individual!" is an example State mind control trick. Constance McMillen's fellow students now view her as the villain, rather than the State bureaucrats/thugs.

Such mind control tricks make people crazy. The cumulative effect over a lifetime is the way people are pro-State brainwashed.

What's a Manifesto?

I noticed an interesting fnord word, "manifesto". Joe Stack's suicide note and blog post is now referred to as his "manifesto".

"Manifesto" is an evil fnord word. If you call something a manifesto, that usually means "This is the ranting of a crazy person. It contains nothing interesting. His point of view is invalid."

Joe Stack had a valid complaint against the IRS. Corrupt State courts didn't recognize his complaint as valid. He tried writing his Congressmen, but they replied "F*** you! We don't care about your problem!" His violent conclusions were wrong. That doesn't invalidate his complaint.

Another example is the "unabomber manifesto". He had some valid concerns about the way parasites had abused him. He wasn't able to explain it clearly like me. The problem is not "Technology is evil!" The problem is that State parasites abuse people via government. If you summarize the unabomber's complaint, it's "Parasites abused me!" (I tried actually reading the unabomber's manifesto. It was incoherent and badly written. I'm summarizing when I say his real point was "Parasites abused me!") I understand the viewpoint of the unabomber and Joe Stack, but I'm picking a different solution for fighting evil.

Abusive jerks get away with it, because most people with high logical intelligence are pro-State brainwashed to accept abuse.

Another example is the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. If you read it carefully, the USA is a nearly perfect implementation of communism! In school, you learn "Karl Marx is evil!", but you don't actually read his writing. If people actually were forced to read Karl Marx's writing in school, they would realize the disturbing similarities with the way the USA is currently organized. Karl Marx wrote a "manifesto", and therefore you don't need to actually read it to conclude he's a fruitcake.

Communism means that government bureaucrats make economic decisions for everyone else. Due to extensive regulation, a corporation is a branch of the State. Theoretically, people are free to start businesses. In practice, it's hard. Many businesses are heavily regulated. The Federal Reserve monetary monopoly restricts non-insiders' access to capital. I can't start my own telephone/electricity/ISP business, because a handful of people have an explicit State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. I can't start my own TV channel, because I couldn't get the cable monopoly to carry it. I can't work as a taxi driver unless I buy a medallion license (in NYC). I can't work as a doctor/lawyer/accountant unless I waste a lot of time and money getting a State permit. I can't start my own alternate financial system based on gold and silver. If I tried that, I'd wind up assaulted by terrorists; that happened to the founders of E-gold and the Liberty Dollar.

Superficially, the USA has a free market. It you look at all the regulations, it's a very non-free market. The cost of starting a business is "Make sure you're in compliance with the bureaucracy!" more than "Do something useful and get customers!" State thugs don't physically assault every small business owner. A small business owner is forced to waste a lot of time and money if he's the victim of an IRS audit or other State regulatory crackdown. State thugs violently crack down on a minority, making everyone else scared. The law is so vague that State thugs have a lot of discretion, when they pick a victim for their harassment.

The income tax, property taxes, a central bank credit monopoly, mandatory public schooling, and government regulations are all key components of Communism. The income tax means that you don't own your own labor. Property taxes mean that you don't own your own land. The inflation tax means that you don't own your own money. The money in your checking account and wallet is subject to theft via inflation. If you don't own your labor, you don't own land, and you don't own money, then aren't you a slave? Government parasites control nearly every aspect of your lives. Mandatory public schooling is really pro-State brainwashing. Government regulations give State thugs an excuse to crack down on almost anyone.

In my State brainwashing center, I learned "Karl Marx is evil! Communism is evil!" When I read about Karl Marx being tried for treason for suggesting "Taxation is theft!", then he seems like a cool guy.

I remember Karl Marx and Communism being heavily criticized in school. However, his actual writing was never mentioned! That's a subtle and important type of State censorship. If you actually read the Communist Manifesto, it's disturbingly similar to the current state of the USA.

The USA passed a lot of laws in the 30's and 40's that severely restricted individual freedom, almost as badly as Nazi Germany. The only difference is that the USA won the war. "Hitler murdered the Jews!" is also a retcon, because the evils weren't fully understood until US troops entered the concentration camps. It was evil, but it wasn't the public excuse for the war at the time.

If something is labeled a "manifesto", there's a fnord implying that the author is crazy and has no valid points. Calling the unabomber's writing a "manifesto" means that there's no reason to try and understand his point of view. The Communist "Manifesto" is criticized but not actually read. By calling Joe Stack's suicide note a "manifesto", that denigrates his valid complaint against IRS terrorism.

Similarly, the mainstream media says that Al Qaeda is a bunch of fruitcakes. State parasites don't want people to understand that Al Qaeda terrorists are retaliating against US aggression. You should not try to understand the point of view of someone who commits an act of violence.

"Manifesto" is an evil fnord word that means "This isn't worth reading." By labeling something a manifesto, that implies the author's point of view is wrong. Joe Stack had a valid complaint against the IRS. His mistaken violent retaliation doesn't invalidate his other points.

The IRS is a dangerous terrorist organization. The IRS hurts more Americans each year than Al Qaeda. The income tax is a complete perversion of the idea that we live in a free society. The income tax means that individuals don't own their own labor. The income tax prevents people from boycotting the Federal Reserve. IRS thugs demand payment in exchange for permission to conduct economic activity, and only Federal Reserve Notes are accepted as valid for paying taxes.

All taxation is theft. The IRS is a clear example of State aggression against people trying to earn an honest living.

Cablevision vs. ABC

This story was interesting. There was a dispute between ABC/Disney and Cablevision, regarding fees for carrying ABC's over-the-air signal.

According to that article, a permanent deal was not reached. ABC/Disney and Cablevision reached a temporary agreement, so that the Oscars would not be interrupted. Otherwise, some of the slaves would have started complaining about the immoral Cablevision monopoly.

The real problem was not disclosed in the mainstream media coverage. The problem is that Cablevision has a monopoly. It's explicitly illegal for me to lay my own cables and compete with Cablevision.

The problem is not "It's hard to lay cables and sign up customers." Cablevision has an explicit State-backed monopoly. Competition is illegal.

In NYC, you can get Cablevision or Time Warner, depending on where you live. However, there are no places where you can get both. It's like mafia gangs agreeing to share their turf, rather than true competition.

Why do State parasites allow abusive monopolies? Monopolies maximize the opportunity for corruption. Suppose a monopoly is worth $100M/year. Then, executives can afford to spend $10M+/year on lobbying and kickbacks. With true competition, the seller would not earn economic rent. There would be no surplus profits to spend on bribes, in a really free market.

The cost of corruption and monopolies isn't free. It's paid by customers as higher prices and a lower quality product.

It's almost exactly the same as the king granting certain merchants a monopoly and corporate charter, in exchange for a cut of the profits and certain legal protections like "limited liability incorporation". In the present, the graft is paid to State insiders, rather than to the king. The bribe can come via a campaign contribution. The bribe can come by hiring a politician's idiot brother-in-law as an executive.

The mechanism by which politicians trade favors and bribes is a type of counter-economy! It's totally illegal, but it happens all the time! If only the agorist counter-economy was as sophisticated as the mechanism by which politicians/insiders/parasites buy and sell favors!

If you look at your cable package, you'll notice 100+ channels. However, they're owned by a small handful of corporations. Each channel has its own separate brand, even though the same corporation controls them. For example, MTV and Comedy Central are both owned by Viacom.

The mainstream media monopoly leads to lower quality. There's 100+ channels, but they represent the viewpoint of a tiny handful of insiders. This enables important viewpoints like "Taxation is theft!" to be completely excluded.

If I want to start my own cable TV channel, it's explicitly illegal. I can try, but I probably won't convince the State-owned monopoly to carry my content. Why should the mainstream media cartel allow competition? If an executive at Viacom wants to start a new channel, he just bundles it with the channels he already sells. If I want to start a new channel, I wouldn't be able to get the mainstream media cartel to carry my content.

A pro-State troll says "FSK doesn't deserve his own channel. He has only 200 regular readers on his blog!" First, 200 regular readers, starting with zero marketing budget and no investment besides my time, is actually pretty good. Second, the mainstream media does not promote my content; this severely restricts my opportunities. How do you know that, if I had a show on a mainstream media channel, I wouldn't get better ratings than "The Daily Show"? It's like the mainstream media saying "We shouldn't cover Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign, because he has no chance of winning." Ron Paul had no chance of winning because he didn't receive any mainstream media coverage. Similarly, do I have only 200 readers because my blog sucks? Or, do I have only 200 readers because the mainstream media cartel denies people like me an opportunity to reach a wider audience?

If there really was a free market of ideas, some mainstream media employer would say "Wow! FSK's ideas are awesome! I have to hire him as a writer!" I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. A pro-State troll says "The mainstream media cartel doesn't want to hire FSK as a writer. Therefore, FSK's ideas are wrong." There's no way I'd get a job at a mainstream media corporation. My writing would call out the rest of them for being frauds.

The Internet does level the playing field somewhat. I was able to start a blog for zero capital cost, an opportunity I would not have had pre-Internet. With a physical newspaper, that's a huge barrier to entry. The old saying was "Freedom of the press is a good idea, especially for those people who own a printing press!" Without the Internet, I wouldn't be able to read other people's non-mainstream ideas and get feedback on my ideas. Even if Blogger wasn't free, I could spend the $20/month and buy hosting. Google gives free Blogger hosting because they probably data mine the IP logs. Plus, Google shows ads around search results that include my blog.

I could start my own YouTube channel and grow my audience organically. It's going to be awhile before that's as profitable as a mainstream media program. Plus, the slaves have been brainwashed to believe "If it's on the mainstream media, then it's true."

Superficially, the problem with the ABC vs. Cablevision dispute is a fee disagreement. The real problem is Cablevision's monopoly; the other issues are evil fnords distracting from the real issue.

There's a law saying "Cable providers must carry the over-the-air signal." There's also a law saying "Cable providers need permission from the station owner to carry the over-the-air signal." This leads to the obvious conflict.

Mainstream media corporations used to provide the signal free/cheap. Squeezed for revenue, they're looking for higher fees.

Does Cablevision really care if ABC demands a higher fee? Actually, no. They will just pass the cost on to customers as higher prices. However, if the fee is too high, then customers might drop their cable.

Another problem is that cable corporations only offer "bundled pricing". Customers don't get to individually pick which channels they want. For example, ESPN is an expensive channel, and I hardly ever watch it. However, if I want the package with Comedy Central and the Cartoon Network, I have to also buy ESPN. "Bundled pricing" is the way a monopolistic seller behaves, just like the way Microsoft bundles IE with Windows. Even if I use Firefox, I pay the cost of IE when I buy Windows.

With unbundled pricing, it wouldn't matter if ABC decided to charge $10/month. Then, customers could not pay for ABC and save. Why doesn't Cablevision offer unbundled pricing? Then, ABC could charge whatever fee they want, and Cablevision would itemize the customer's bill. "Unbundled cable" is technically feasible; the cable monopoly chooses to not implement it.

I can't say "I refuse to pay the ABC portion of my cable bill. I'll use the over-the-air signal when I want to watch ABC."

The cable corporations don't want unbundled pricing, because bundling is the way a monopolistic seller maximizes profits. The mainstream media corporations also like this arrangement, because they can bundle unpopular channels with popular channels. Monopolistic sellers like to bundle things together, because customers have to buy stuff they want along with stuff they don't want.

There is one form of competition with the local cable monopoly. There's parallel competition. The phone monopoly also sells cable now, via Verizon FiOS. (FiOS isn't available yet where I live. My parents are eager to dump Time Warner. I'd certainly like a faster Internet connection.)

You also can download some shows on the Internet. That can be done legally on various websites like Hulu. It can also be done illegally via BitTorrent.

However, Internet access is still bought via a State monopoly/oligopoly. Several State-licensed competitors provides some of the benefits of a free market, while still providing the benefits of an oligopolistic cartel. It's mostly/completely illegal for me to start my own ISP business. With Internet access, I have more than two choices. There's the telephone monopoly and the cable monopoly. There's also Internet via cellphone, which isn't as good as a wire (yet?).

When two monopolies negotiate, the incentive is for brinksmanship negotiation. It is not a true free market negotiation. A monopolistic seller and a monopolistic buyer have no market price signals.

For example, suppose the economic rent due to Cablevision's monopoly is $20 per subscriber per month. What is ABC's fair share of this $20 economic rent? There's no correct answer, because it's monopolistic rent.

Therefore, both ABC/Disney and Cablevision have an incentive to stall as long as possible. The only threat is that some Congressman will bow to public pressure and impose a solution. If Cablevision or ABC/Disney act too much like jerkwads, then some Congressman might pass a law that makes their monopoly less valuable, due to public outrage. You can steal from the slaves via taxes and monopolies. If you deny the slaves their bread and circuses and Oscars, that's a real problem!

Another example of brinksmanship negotiating is between a sports league and the players' union. The incentive is for neither side to offer meaningful concessions until the last minute.

For example, the NFL has a State-backed football monopoly. Competition isn't illegal, but there's severe State restriction of the market. Most of the NFL's profit is economic rent. What is the fair share for the players? There's no correct answer. It's like thieves disagreeing over how to share their stolen property.

However, in a really free market, the players would almost certainly earn more. The reason the players don't form their competing league is that it's illegal/impractical. For example, most stadiums are State-funded. The NFL also has long-term mainstream media contracts and bank loans subsidized via negative real interest rates. A new league wouldn't get those perks.

The negotiations between the NFL and the players' union will almost definitely go down to the last minute. The probably will be a lockout. Both sides have a State-backed monopoly. The owners have a stronger bargaining position, because a player's career only lasts a few years. The owners can "divide and conquer" the players, offering concessions that benefit the majority but hurt a minority. One such example is the "franchise" and "transition" tags, which only hurt star players.

The mainstream media covered the dispute between ABC and Cablevision, but not the correct answer. The problem is that Cablevision has a monopoly.

Mainstream media celebrities and journalists are forced to work as wage slaves. Why doesn't someone like Conan O'Brien say "**** this! I'm starting my own channel!" The problem is that the mainstream media cartel won't allow competition.

If I tried to start my own mainstream media channel, I could not get the cable monopoly to carry it. Even if I gave away the signal for free and had a decent audience, it still is impossible/illegal to compete.

The mainstream media monopoly doesn't just lead to higher prices. It also leads to lower quality. Certain important ideas, such as "Taxation is theft!" are not mentioned at all. In many ways, the mainstream media is as State-owned and controlled in the USA, worse than in the Soviet Union. The USA merely has an illusion of a free press. Any journalist who didn't follow the State disinformation campaign would be discredited and forfeit his career.