9 ms·

>A bargained-for exchange of information for service is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy, including the Internet ecosyst

by zarriak 10y ago

>A bargained-for exchange of information for service is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy, including the Internet ecosystem Isn't bargaining a two sided affair? Also something that should be part of the article and is a LARGE omission is the fact that Comcast is literally a shareholder in Hulu. This could mean it is them selling ads on a service they are owners of using the data they gathered as an ISP and not only as a service, like the data Netflix would have. It seems to me a much more egregious offense then them selling my data, something I expect to happen with a monopoly. Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide as an example of why Libertarian ideology can't feasibly work, but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists.

duncan_bayne 10y ago
> but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists. So what conclusions do you draw about Libertarian - really in this case Austrian - deregulation of markets? Given that: * Comcast exists * It provides service to (IIRC) millions of people * It turns a tidy profit ... it seems like the worst case example you can raise isn't so bad? I mean, if you're citing Comcast as a worst case criticism of Libertarianism, that's a lot better than say the whole of Venezuela as an example of a planned economy.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  If we had a free market, without laws preventing competition like we do now, then there'd likely be alternatives to choose from, e.g. people could pay more for privacy or get a bargain if they don't care about privacy. Since Comcast uses the state to enforce its monopoly, the artificial scarcity has the effect of locking in users. Comcast is a great example of why free markets should exist -- to give users more choice.
  - Osiris 10y ago
    Pure laissez-faire capitalism naturally converges toward monopolies. Without regulation, the only thing that prevents monopolies from developing is if there is a low cost of entry to a market. In an industry where there is a very high cost of entry (like building out a massive telecommunication network), the end result is very assuredly a single monopoly power. Think about it. The telecoms were already broken up once. The continue to attempt to merge (AT&T + T-mobile, TWC + Comcast). Without a regulatory agency disallowing mergers in the name of competition, you wouldn't have choice at all. The end result of competition is no competition at all.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      These are good points but you're leaving off the fact that these companies paid off State legislatures to make competition illegal in various ways. Particularly stopping people in a city or state from using tax dollars to fund something better. It's banned in some with only the local utility able to do it in others. Plus, the big companies got billions in tax subsidies to build their networks with promise of getting broadband to about everyone. Quite a lot of corruption by a cartel of a few instead of laissez-faire.
      - Osiris 10y ago
        Exactly. Businesses will use whatever means at their disposal to remove competition, whether that's government, financial, and even morally reprehensible actions at the expense of others. My point is that even if companies weren't able to leverage government to reduce competition, they'd find other mechanisms to accomplish the same goal, such as just buying up all the competition. Think about it. If you're a competitor and trying to make profit, how better to do that than to consolidate with the big players until one player gains significant control over the market to demand whatever price they wish to maximize their profit?
        cloverich 10y ago
        I think the counter point is: What's stopping another player from entering the market? They can only keep buying up the competition if the competition is always willing to sell. More over, the ability to buy up the competition presumes a sufficient surplus of profits to be able to do that in perpetuity. Another large actor (say, Google), could recognize this and enter the market without any intention of selling (only of capturing those surplus profits). To be clear I'm not for any ideology here -- my point above is to get at what I want to discuss: Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? (I hope Yes / No / Yes, but don't know!)
        antisthenes 10y ago
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    You definitely have that completely backwards.
- pjc50 10y ago
  I do like how libertarians play the false dichotomy. Everything must be either Full Libertarianism or Full Communism. No room for the inconvenient realities of a functioning mixed economy.
  - duncan_bayne 10y ago
    How did you get that, from what I posted? Either I was unclear, or you meant to reply to someone else?
    - pjc50 10y ago
      The irrelevant mention of Venezuela?
      - duncan_bayne 10y ago
        Okay, it was me being unclear :) The OP said he thought Comcast was the worst example of free market policies in action that he could think of. Leaving aside that Comcast is not operating in anything like a free economy, I was trying to make the point that if it was truly the worst example he could think of, then he should probably reconsider his criticism of free market policies. I cited Venezuela as the worst (contemporary) example of a planned economy that I could think of, as a counterpoint to his worst example in Comcast. But yes, the facts are that: * Almost all economies today are mixed (that is, neither entirely free or entirely planned). * They mostly work pretty well, in the sense that people nowadays are much better off, by almost every conceivable measure, than in the past. My argument is that: * Nations are better off to the extent that their markets are free (e.g. Denmark vs. Cuba). * Leaving aside the economic outcomes, coercion in economic matters is as morally wrong as in others (e.g. forcing someone to take a customer they don't want is as wrong as prohibiting them from taking a customer they do want; for concrete examples, think gay wedding cakes and legislated segregation on buses).
        pjc50 10y ago
        Yeah, if the worst thing that's happened to you under capitalism is being overcharged by Comcast, you're still having a pretty good day and should look for worse examples. All sorts of things from the US healthcare system to Philip "unacceptable face of capitalism" Green might count as worse. Thankyou for acknowledging those facts. It's interesting that you choose to mention Denmark. My point was that suggesting applying even the tiniest bit of regulation to a near-monopoly market participant immediately brings out the comparison to Venezuela; it's just hyperbole in the opposite direction. I don't think people are arguing that the US should become more like Venezuela in order to reduce their broadband bills; more that it should learn from Denmark. My experience of libertarianism is people arguing that any amount of abuse of power by private actors is fine, it's just that government is magic and any use of its power will immediately collapse into abuse. This rests on contorted definitions of "coercion" that don't include restriction of economic options or even anti-market actions by private actors. "Free market" and "unlimited power for market actors" aren't quite the same thing.
mikeryan 10y ago
I'm entirely confused on how the Hulu thing plays. This could mean it is them selling ads on a service they are owners of using the data they gathered as an ISP and not only as a service, like the data Netflix would have. Somehow Hulu, using data bought by Comcast is worse when Comcast owns a share of Hulu? How does this change whether Comcast is an owner or not? Hulu could purchase the data either way and since Hulu is an investment, not a subsidiary it would end up a customer of Comcast data. Netflix could also buy the data from Comcast, but of course that makes no sense because Netflix doesn't have ads. Isn't bargaining a two sided affair? Yes and here's the deal Comcast is offering, 1. Pay full Rack rate, and we don't sell your data. 2. Take a cut on our rate but we sell your data to advertisers. Whats one sided about that? One option is "do the same thing you're already doing" and the other is "pay less, lose some privacy"
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  "Yes and here's the deal Comcast is offering, 1. Pay full Rack rate, and we don't sell your data. 2. Take a cut on our rate but we sell your data to advertisers. "Whats one sided about that? One option is "do the same thing you're already doing" and the other is 'pay less, lose some privacy'" But this statement of the deal is ultimately disingenuous - as a monopoly/duopoloy, Comcast is going to be setting its prices, so over time, the deal will become "pay more, maybe a lot more or we do what we want".
  - Trundle 10y ago
    That's the case irrespective of them selling information.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Not true, it's harder to pick on a majority.
hueving 10y ago
>Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide as an example of why Libertarian ideology can't feasibly work, but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists. The problem with making lame generalizations about ideologies is that you can pretty much point to any one you like and claim this is an example of its shortcomings. The reason comcast is the only provider in many locations is because of regulations that prevent new companies from laying cables. Google has effectively unlimited money to throw at Google Fiber, but it's a slow process because of regulatory hurdles. "Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide an example of why government regulations leads to regulatory capture."
- existencebox 10y ago
  This is a debate I'd like to insert a thought into. I'll rephrase both your sentences. "Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide an example of how with sufficient connections and power (monetary) one can exploit any loopholes provided in a governing framework." I do not see this is a partisan or philosophical debate. Comcast doesn't care what govt is in power, +/- some ease of operation, I believe we'll see the same modus operandi. If we leave a hole through insufficient regulation, they'll abuse it. If we leave a hole through to MUCH regulation, they'll abuse it. Here's where I start spewing generic quotes about "who watches the watchmen" and drawing parallels between the almost unwinnable battle of security devs vs. hackers (and at least in the tech world in a lot of instances we have provable math on our side, politics/philosophy doesn't even have that much to be confident in.) At the risk of deflating any utility of my comment, I can't answer the implied question of "so what" but the correct answer to me is not believing one idiology is somehow immune to what I see as a very side-channel behavior. A focus on how to combat _that_ can be far more productive than more divisive partisanship; and at the additional risk of sounding like a tin foil hatter, "the more we fight among ourselves the more they're SURE to win."
  - notduncansmith 10y ago
    I don't think there's a need to mention tinfoil hats. The way we combat that is by aligning the interests of would-be rule-breakers with those of whom the rules are designed to protect. My preferred solution is a bit radical, but I think we should make digital infrastructure like internet/cable/telecoms the sole role of the government, just like the way we do with regular roads. R&D may make sense to sponsor with grants/bounties, and construction/maintenance may make sense to subcontract out, but the specs are open-source and up to the public[1] so that if some party were to say, exfiltrate user data for ad targeting use, they'd be in violation of multiple laws and would be arrested (not to mention reviled by the rest of society). It would also require a conspicuous degree and scale of security for someone who's supposed to be transparently manufacturing open hardware (which could then be further inspected by consumers - no more of this restricted binary blob shit). [1] Implying some other process changes around increased transparency and accessibility of government, and patent reform, but we're blue-skying here.
mtgx 10y ago
I was with you until you mentioned the Libertarian ideology. Comcast's position is not aided by the "free market". If there was a free market, there would be a ton of other competitors that wouldn't be willing to do this and people could switch over to them. Comcast has its monopoly position because most cities and states give them local monopoly - which is like the opposite of what a libertarian would allow.
- Keverw 10y ago
  Yeah, only one cable company per area. The only option is a 3G/4G hotspot which charges per GB and is outrageous, then slower DSL. Some people are lucky to have Fiber offered. Cell phone carriers, there's only 4 I think nationwide than all the other "carriers" just resell them as a white label. I never got why 1GB is $10 a gig, when with a VPS I can buy bandwidth for like 10 cents a GB. Why a 100x price increase for just making the bandwidth wireless?
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> Why a 100x price increase for just making the bandwidth wireless? Because they can and will continue to do so as long as they can.
  - y4mi 10y ago
    urm, it does make sense to have a massive increase in price for wireless traffic though. there is a finite amount of data you can carry over wireless technology per m^2 (and its significantly less than you'd expect). this limit doesn't exist with wires, as you can always add another cable.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  Capitalist free markets inevitably lead to consolidation of capital and monopolies/oligopolies that influence policy to promote their own rent-seeking. It's sorta why all the monopolies were broken up before and why some mergers are blocked (not nearly enough to promote healthy competition, though). "Free" libertopia markets don't stay free forever. They are self-destructive. This is especially evident in the hardware IT market. Look, for example, at all the hard drive and SSD manufacturers that existed between 1990 and today. Eventually, they all consolidated back to Seagate & WD. And every smaller SSD company folded or got bought by the people who actually manufacture flash memory. > which is like the opposite of what a libertarian would allow. Allowing something assumes you have power to restrict it, which, in the market with consolidated capital you don't, unless you are part of the government, which can overrule an individual corporate mandate.
CyberDildonics 10y ago
> why Libertarian ideology can't feasibly work Don't forget that they don't have any competition, a big part of which is due to laws preventing municipal broadband networks. I don't think anyone is too worried about this in Chattanooga, TN, where over 100,000 people have access to 10gb fiber to their homes.
- mox1 10y ago
  I think the bigger reason they don't have competition is due to the crazy requirements to become an ISP / cable service for any city in america. You need to meet with EACH city and sign a "franchise agreement", which specifically spells out what kind of service you will provide and who you will provide it to. This includes you providing a certain amount of bandwidth for local access / public access channels. It probably also includes promising to service 100% of the city and also whatever pet project the council has (wire up low income housing, provide 1GBPS service to the mayor's uncle back up in the woods on the edge of town, etc. etc.). Don't forget the public gets to comment, critique this entire process. Jane the cat lover can show up and demand a 24/7 cat pictures channel, if enough of Jane's friends support that, its going to the franchise agreement. It sounds like a good process in theory, but it just ends up getting super bogged down. Comcast are the masters of negotiating these things, they have teams and teams of lawyers who do nothing but get these setup.
- benhardy 10y ago
  yeah, we're really not :-)

by zarriak 10y ago

duncan_bayne 10y ago

> but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists. So what conclusions do you draw about Libertarian - really in this case Austrian - deregulation of markets? Given that: * Comcast exists * It provides service to (IIRC) millions of people * It turns a tidy profit ... it seems like the worst case example you can raise isn't so bad? I mean, if you're citing Comcast as a worst case criticism of Libertarianism, that's a lot better than say the whole of Venezuela as an example of a planned economy.

programmarchy 10y ago
If we had a free market, without laws preventing competition like we do now, then there'd likely be alternatives to choose from, e.g. people could pay more for privacy or get a bargain if they don't care about privacy. Since Comcast uses the state to enforce its monopoly, the artificial scarcity has the effect of locking in users. Comcast is a great example of why free markets should exist -- to give users more choice.
- Osiris 10y ago
  Pure laissez-faire capitalism naturally converges toward monopolies. Without regulation, the only thing that prevents monopolies from developing is if there is a low cost of entry to a market. In an industry where there is a very high cost of entry (like building out a massive telecommunication network), the end result is very assuredly a single monopoly power. Think about it. The telecoms were already broken up once. The continue to attempt to merge (AT&T + T-mobile, TWC + Comcast). Without a regulatory agency disallowing mergers in the name of competition, you wouldn't have choice at all. The end result of competition is no competition at all.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    These are good points but you're leaving off the fact that these companies paid off State legislatures to make competition illegal in various ways. Particularly stopping people in a city or state from using tax dollars to fund something better. It's banned in some with only the local utility able to do it in others. Plus, the big companies got billions in tax subsidies to build their networks with promise of getting broadband to about everyone. Quite a lot of corruption by a cartel of a few instead of laissez-faire.
    - Osiris 10y ago
      Exactly. Businesses will use whatever means at their disposal to remove competition, whether that's government, financial, and even morally reprehensible actions at the expense of others. My point is that even if companies weren't able to leverage government to reduce competition, they'd find other mechanisms to accomplish the same goal, such as just buying up all the competition. Think about it. If you're a competitor and trying to make profit, how better to do that than to consolidate with the big players until one player gains significant control over the market to demand whatever price they wish to maximize their profit?
      - cloverich 10y ago
        I think the counter point is: What's stopping another player from entering the market? They can only keep buying up the competition if the competition is always willing to sell. More over, the ability to buy up the competition presumes a sufficient surplus of profits to be able to do that in perpetuity. Another large actor (say, Google), could recognize this and enter the market without any intention of selling (only of capturing those surplus profits). To be clear I'm not for any ideology here -- my point above is to get at what I want to discuss: Is Comcast mostly crappy because of their (regulation provided) monopoly? Do those (particular) regulations exist for good reason? If not, can we work on removing them to level the playing field? (I hope Yes / No / Yes, but don't know!)
        antisthenes 10y ago
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  You definitely have that completely backwards.
pjc50 10y ago
I do like how libertarians play the false dichotomy. Everything must be either Full Libertarianism or Full Communism. No room for the inconvenient realities of a functioning mixed economy.
- duncan_bayne 10y ago
  How did you get that, from what I posted? Either I was unclear, or you meant to reply to someone else?
  - pjc50 10y ago
    The irrelevant mention of Venezuela?
    - duncan_bayne 10y ago
      Okay, it was me being unclear :) The OP said he thought Comcast was the worst example of free market policies in action that he could think of. Leaving aside that Comcast is not operating in anything like a free economy, I was trying to make the point that if it was truly the worst example he could think of, then he should probably reconsider his criticism of free market policies. I cited Venezuela as the worst (contemporary) example of a planned economy that I could think of, as a counterpoint to his worst example in Comcast. But yes, the facts are that: * Almost all economies today are mixed (that is, neither entirely free or entirely planned). * They mostly work pretty well, in the sense that people nowadays are much better off, by almost every conceivable measure, than in the past. My argument is that: * Nations are better off to the extent that their markets are free (e.g. Denmark vs. Cuba). * Leaving aside the economic outcomes, coercion in economic matters is as morally wrong as in others (e.g. forcing someone to take a customer they don't want is as wrong as prohibiting them from taking a customer they do want; for concrete examples, think gay wedding cakes and legislated segregation on buses).
      - pjc50 10y ago
        Yeah, if the worst thing that's happened to you under capitalism is being overcharged by Comcast, you're still having a pretty good day and should look for worse examples. All sorts of things from the US healthcare system to Philip "unacceptable face of capitalism" Green might count as worse. Thankyou for acknowledging those facts. It's interesting that you choose to mention Denmark. My point was that suggesting applying even the tiniest bit of regulation to a near-monopoly market participant immediately brings out the comparison to Venezuela; it's just hyperbole in the opposite direction. I don't think people are arguing that the US should become more like Venezuela in order to reduce their broadband bills; more that it should learn from Denmark. My experience of libertarianism is people arguing that any amount of abuse of power by private actors is fine, it's just that government is magic and any use of its power will immediately collapse into abuse. This rests on contorted definitions of "coercion" that don't include restriction of economic options or even anti-market actions by private actors. "Free market" and "unlimited power for market actors" aren't quite the same thing.

mikeryan 10y ago

I'm entirely confused on how the Hulu thing plays. This could mean it is them selling ads on a service they are owners of using the data they gathered as an ISP and not only as a service, like the data Netflix would have. Somehow Hulu, using data bought by Comcast is worse when Comcast owns a share of Hulu? How does this change whether Comcast is an owner or not? Hulu could purchase the data either way and since Hulu is an investment, not a subsidiary it would end up a customer of Comcast data. Netflix could also buy the data from Comcast, but of course that makes no sense because Netflix doesn't have ads. Isn't bargaining a two sided affair? Yes and here's the deal Comcast is offering, 1. Pay full Rack rate, and we don't sell your data. 2. Take a cut on our rate but we sell your data to advertisers. Whats one sided about that? One option is "do the same thing you're already doing" and the other is "pay less, lose some privacy"

joe_the_user 10y ago
"Yes and here's the deal Comcast is offering, 1. Pay full Rack rate, and we don't sell your data. 2. Take a cut on our rate but we sell your data to advertisers. "Whats one sided about that? One option is "do the same thing you're already doing" and the other is 'pay less, lose some privacy'" But this statement of the deal is ultimately disingenuous - as a monopoly/duopoloy, Comcast is going to be setting its prices, so over time, the deal will become "pay more, maybe a lot more or we do what we want".
- Trundle 10y ago
  That's the case irrespective of them selling information.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Not true, it's harder to pick on a majority.

hueving 10y ago

>Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide as an example of why Libertarian ideology can't feasibly work, but the example would seem so absurd it still shocks me it exists. The problem with making lame generalizations about ideologies is that you can pretty much point to any one you like and claim this is an example of its shortcomings. The reason comcast is the only provider in many locations is because of regulations that prevent new companies from laying cables. Google has effectively unlimited money to throw at Google Fiber, but it's a slow process because of regulatory hurdles. "Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide an example of why government regulations leads to regulatory capture."

existencebox 10y ago
This is a debate I'd like to insert a thought into. I'll rephrase both your sentences. "Comcast is the company that seems like the entity that one would provide an example of how with sufficient connections and power (monetary) one can exploit any loopholes provided in a governing framework." I do not see this is a partisan or philosophical debate. Comcast doesn't care what govt is in power, +/- some ease of operation, I believe we'll see the same modus operandi. If we leave a hole through insufficient regulation, they'll abuse it. If we leave a hole through to MUCH regulation, they'll abuse it. Here's where I start spewing generic quotes about "who watches the watchmen" and drawing parallels between the almost unwinnable battle of security devs vs. hackers (and at least in the tech world in a lot of instances we have provable math on our side, politics/philosophy doesn't even have that much to be confident in.) At the risk of deflating any utility of my comment, I can't answer the implied question of "so what" but the correct answer to me is not believing one idiology is somehow immune to what I see as a very side-channel behavior. A focus on how to combat _that_ can be far more productive than more divisive partisanship; and at the additional risk of sounding like a tin foil hatter, "the more we fight among ourselves the more they're SURE to win."
- notduncansmith 10y ago
  I don't think there's a need to mention tinfoil hats. The way we combat that is by aligning the interests of would-be rule-breakers with those of whom the rules are designed to protect. My preferred solution is a bit radical, but I think we should make digital infrastructure like internet/cable/telecoms the sole role of the government, just like the way we do with regular roads. R&D may make sense to sponsor with grants/bounties, and construction/maintenance may make sense to subcontract out, but the specs are open-source and up to the public[1] so that if some party were to say, exfiltrate user data for ad targeting use, they'd be in violation of multiple laws and would be arrested (not to mention reviled by the rest of society). It would also require a conspicuous degree and scale of security for someone who's supposed to be transparently manufacturing open hardware (which could then be further inspected by consumers - no more of this restricted binary blob shit). [1] Implying some other process changes around increased transparency and accessibility of government, and patent reform, but we're blue-skying here.

mtgx 10y ago

I was with you until you mentioned the Libertarian ideology. Comcast's position is not aided by the "free market". If there was a free market, there would be a ton of other competitors that wouldn't be willing to do this and people could switch over to them. Comcast has its monopoly position because most cities and states give them local monopoly - which is like the opposite of what a libertarian would allow.

Keverw 10y ago
Yeah, only one cable company per area. The only option is a 3G/4G hotspot which charges per GB and is outrageous, then slower DSL. Some people are lucky to have Fiber offered. Cell phone carriers, there's only 4 I think nationwide than all the other "carriers" just resell them as a white label. I never got why 1GB is $10 a gig, when with a VPS I can buy bandwidth for like 10 cents a GB. Why a 100x price increase for just making the bandwidth wireless?
- talmand 10y ago
  >> Why a 100x price increase for just making the bandwidth wireless? Because they can and will continue to do so as long as they can.
- y4mi 10y ago
  urm, it does make sense to have a massive increase in price for wireless traffic though. there is a finite amount of data you can carry over wireless technology per m^2 (and its significantly less than you'd expect). this limit doesn't exist with wires, as you can always add another cable.
antisthenes 10y ago
Capitalist free markets inevitably lead to consolidation of capital and monopolies/oligopolies that influence policy to promote their own rent-seeking. It's sorta why all the monopolies were broken up before and why some mergers are blocked (not nearly enough to promote healthy competition, though). "Free" libertopia markets don't stay free forever. They are self-destructive. This is especially evident in the hardware IT market. Look, for example, at all the hard drive and SSD manufacturers that existed between 1990 and today. Eventually, they all consolidated back to Seagate & WD. And every smaller SSD company folded or got bought by the people who actually manufacture flash memory. > which is like the opposite of what a libertarian would allow. Allowing something assumes you have power to restrict it, which, in the market with consolidated capital you don't, unless you are part of the government, which can overrule an individual corporate mandate.

CyberDildonics 10y ago

> why Libertarian ideology can't feasibly work Don't forget that they don't have any competition, a big part of which is due to laws preventing municipal broadband networks. I don't think anyone is too worried about this in Chattanooga, TN, where over 100,000 people have access to 10gb fiber to their homes.

mox1 10y ago
I think the bigger reason they don't have competition is due to the crazy requirements to become an ISP / cable service for any city in america. You need to meet with EACH city and sign a "franchise agreement", which specifically spells out what kind of service you will provide and who you will provide it to. This includes you providing a certain amount of bandwidth for local access / public access channels. It probably also includes promising to service 100% of the city and also whatever pet project the council has (wire up low income housing, provide 1GBPS service to the mayor's uncle back up in the woods on the edge of town, etc. etc.). Don't forget the public gets to comment, critique this entire process. Jane the cat lover can show up and demand a 24/7 cat pictures channel, if enough of Jane's friends support that, its going to the franchise agreement. It sounds like a good process in theory, but it just ends up getting super bogged down. Comcast are the masters of negotiating these things, they have teams and teams of lawyers who do nothing but get these setup.
benhardy 10y ago
yeah, we're really not :-)