Slashdot Mirror

Apple's bendable iPhone6 was ahead of it's time yet again. At least it didn't break the screen.

Actually, it did. I know, because I had an iPhone 6 Plus. Thankfully, I was able to bend the screen back & get it working long enough to get the full trade in value for an iPhone 7 Plus.

From this article:

It said Amazon was able to pay so little tax because its finances were structured in a way that avoided liability. The institute highlighted Amazon's efforts to maximize tax credits and tax breaks for executive stock options as two examples of this.

"Amazon pays all the taxes we are required to pay in the US and every country where we operate, including paying $2.6 billion in corporate tax and reporting $3.4 billion in tax expense over the last three years," Amazon said in a statement issued Thursday.

"Corporate tax is based on profits, not revenues, and our profits remain modest given retail is a highly competitive, low-margin business and our continued heavy investment."

Wal-Mart isn't on higher ground, they're just not able to take as much advantage of the tax law (or not as good at it) as Amazon. In case you haven't heard, Trump isn't a big fan of Bezos and/or Amazon and wouldn't have gone out of his way to benefit them in the new Republican tax bill last year... so Amazon is only paying the taxes they're required to -- and they're not alone. As noted in this article:

Big businesses are faring better than ever under the Trump era tax law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). ... about 60 Fortune 500 companies avoided paying all federal income tax in 2018 (with their total average effective tax rate being roughly -5%).

That’s more than three times the number of companies that avoided paying corporate taxes on average from 2008 to 2015. During that period, 18 companies managed to pay 0% or less (with their total average effective tax rate over 8 years being roughly -4%).

Even Trump boasts about paying very little federal taxes because he "takes advantage of the tax laws."

The House passed a bill banning the government from creating 'free' tax preparation software like TurboTax, forever.

Quote: "Many of the lawmakers shepherding the bill through the House Committee on Ways & Means have benefited from campaign donations from tax-preparation companies like H&R Block and Intuit."

If you are in New Zealand, you can get up to 10 years in jail just for having the shooter's manifesto in your possession:

Link Here

Ten Years. For having a hateful text document on your computer.

I would call that morally bankrupt.

You are a dumb moron. Whataboutisms and false equivalences. Get your head out of your ass before we completely become a dystopia with your bullshit deflections.

If you are in New Zealand, you can get up to 10 years in jail just for having the shooter's manifesto in your possession:

Link Here

Ten Years. For having a hateful text document on your computer.

I would call that morally bankrupt.

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

I have a straw man to burn.

FTFY.

My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center.

There is literally no where on the planet that Netflix is offered where they have relay servers that far away.

For the smart solution to happen, there have to be incentives for Netflix and the ISP to do it.

Yes, if they want to be functional and responsive to requests, Netflix will need to not do what you propose in you burning strawman argument. Your ISP doesn't have to do anything at all.

Without net neutrality, it could work:

Yeah, we've seen how it works without net neutrality. It's pretty simple, they prevent you from doing business until they get a cut.

Your approach to the issue is naive to say the least because you think companies are trying to provide services in exchange for money. The truth is companies are trying to maximize profits and doesn't give a shit about their customers, so long as they keep paying money. Don't believe me? Just look at how many complaints Comcast has against it, how many times it's abused it's market position and how many settlements it's made to avoid taking responsibility for it's own actions.

No matter how much you want to believe something, it will not change reality.

Oh, nobody. Well, nobody representing the 'leave' campaigns anyway. People wanting to stay in the EU constantly lie about the leave arguments, so thanks for confirming you want the UK to remain.

We send the EU £350 million a week...

Two thoughts:

• I had a co-worker who at one point worked for a startup which was short on money and could not pay its employees. Oracle bought them out, and, to Oracle's credit, they did pay his back pay and then increased his salary.
• According to one of the linked articles, Oracle doing layoffs is an annual ritual. Remind me not to work there.

The term is "regulatory capture", and it's been blamed for the Deepwater Horizon incident, and Wall Street's shenanigans.

From that second link, "the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. Regulatory capture happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public."

That's not a good use of the budget.

I don't think the government knows what that sentence means judging by a ton of studies they funded in the past.

These were just the first results of a google search:
https://www.businessinsider.com
https://www.nationalreview.com

Exactly. The odds of people relying on "luck" as the driving force for success are going to have their odds of being successful be about the same as winning the lottery. For the people who rely on working hard and doing the right things instead, the vast majority of them will be successful.

To think the first attitude is "better" than the second is crazy and self-defeating. Did the article writers "luck" into the article, having it appear magically fully formed for them on their computer, or did they put out some tiny amount of effort in writing it and that was required to accomplish it?

Sure, there are some fields and endeavors where lottery-style luck plays more of a part than in others where it doesn't. The genetic lottery-based NBA is one of those where it does. But even if you are given the right genetics, parents and opportunities, to be great in the NBA still requires hard work. Luck, or privilege, or whatever isn't sufficient. You can succeed on pure hustle, but you can't reliably succeed by doing nothing and being "lucky".

He got rich because he had skills, and he was well-connected

Yup.

He got those skills in the first place because of who his parents were, and because of the opportunities presented by that parentage.

That doesn't invalidate the first point in any way.

Now, it is true that Bill Gates had some decent programming skills, and it is also true that I am a better programmer than he ever was, and I am still not as rich as him. But they are measuring the wrong thing: Gates didn't get rich because of his programming skills, he got rich because of his business skills

His father was a well-connected lawyer, and his mother was chair of the United Way (at which time she rubbed elbows with the CEO of IBM) and also on the board of the First Interstate Bank of Washington. He got rich because he had skills, and he was well-connected. He got those skills in the first place because of who his parents were, and because of the opportunities presented by that parentage. If you want to tell the whole story, it's best to start at the beginning. Let's also not forget that Microsoft, under Bill Gates, was found to have abused its position in the marketplace in pretty much every possible way, and was let off with a handslap by John Ashcroft, under George Bush. They often say that behind every great fortune there is a great crime, and Bill Gates is a career criminal.

"Amazon did nothing but lose money for the first ten years of its existence" .....what's your point? That they should do so forever? That it's okay to continue losing money because you've lost money in the past? You need to understand how Amazon works and how it's different from most companies before you keep squawking. The most important quote from that article:

"Here is how Amazon actually works: As long as the company can grow its revenues, it can spend any profit it makes on new lines of business that throw off more revenues. Those revenues may also be profitable, and those profits can in turn be immediately spent again on more growth. By eschewing profits, the company can also offer the lowest prices possible (which is why consumers are so loyal to it). Some parts of the company are profitable and fuel growth in others."

Oh yeah, and uh, Amazon has turned a profit several times despite your claims to the contrary.

"There is nothing about having a physical store presence that forces companies to run in the black when they can run in the red to increase their marketshare." sure there is! It's a physical store selling overpriced "premium" food! Whole Foods will never clean out its competitors by waging a price war. Luxury goods are the first thing to go in a budget when someone's times get a little tough. The only way they could wage a price war in local markets is to become a normal grocery store which will not go over so well with their target customer base.

For someone who keeps squawking about "you could learn this in fifth grade economics class, dumbass" you sure do need to learn a lot of things from fifth grade economics class.

My understanding: Microsoft is an EXTREMELY poorly-managed company. I think much more attention should be given to that.

Microsoft trash talks Windows 10 LTSC -- again (Dec. 5, 2018)

Microsoft scrambles to limit PR damage over abusive AI bot Tay. (Nov. 30, 2017)

Guess what country sued Microsoft over abusive user data collection! -- Brazil (Apr. 28, 2018) Bad adjective: "beloved" Windows 10.

Apparently the present worsening management began with Ballmer-osis: Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

But Microsoft was always abusive, apparently: 'Crush Them': An Oral History of the Lawsuit That Upended Silicon Valley. (May 18, 2018)

Bill Gates still runs Microsoft: Two years ago, during a Jan. 17, 2017 discussion with Charlie Rose, Bill Gates said he spends "15 percent" of his time managing Microsoft. I interpreted that to mean that Gates is still extremely involved and very influential. Did Gates want the mess that is Windows 10?

From the transcript at that Charlie Rose web page:

08:42
"Bill Gates: I'm there about 15 percent of the time. And I get to work just on the R and D part, brainstorming with people, thinking, OK, how are we going to take this artificial intelligence and make it understand, help you use your time better. It's a very exciting time in software. There's five companies that are, you know, in a really strong position. Microsoft is leading in some really cool stuff so --"

It seems obvious that Bill Gates still has a huge amount of overall influence on the management of Microsoft, even if he mostly focuses on other subjects.

Lately, Windows users are not allowed to know what Windows updates actually do. In the past, for example, users were pushed to Windows 10, without giving their permission. So, now Windows 7 customers will be paying for updates that may be abusive.

Some of the many stories about Windows 10 indicate deliberate abuse of customers:

Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)

Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression (May 27, 2016)

Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads (March 17, 2017)

Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. (March 21, 2017)

I grew up in Indiana (when they didn't observe) and it was glorious. The only thing we ever noticed was that all our summer TV shows were 'central time'.

This whole twice a year thing is jarring. We ate dinner at 9 tonight because we're used to looking outside to judge when to start stuff.

Plus all the studies of morbidity in hospitals and traffic accidents.

Daylight-saving time is literally killing us

But each year on the Monday after the springtime switch, hospitals report a 24% spike in heart-attack visits around the US.

Then again, I'm sort of a diehard UTC person. College caught me that who cares what time you wake up on the clock. Especially with the global economy I know business meetings across 4 timezones and all their nuances would go a lot smoother if we just set UTC meeting times.

They are starting new sites with a focus on local (State) level news. Most local news sites are owned by a handful of large companies.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

These people are obviously responding to a need for news that the public feels isn't being met.

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_...
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018...
https://thehill.com/homenews/m...

Simply because a website sources some of their news from large national sources does not make it fake news. Local news companies source stories from Reuters and the Associated Press all the time. Why do you think you can find the exact same article in a range of news outlets?

Presuming news to be fake simply because it comes from a different political perspective is hubris at best.

1) Here's a list of top dividend paying stocks, from Kiplinger's.

2) Here's a list of Treasury note and bill yields, from Treasury Direct.

You can see the differentials in returns. I guess 1 and 2 percent returns on stocks is superseded by the expected appreciation.

If you started buying stocks in 1987, "dollar cost averaging" with your income, you would be in a very good position today. My point is that the game has changed. The financial media used to whisper/joke about the "Greenspan Put". More recently one of the Fed Vice chairs (Stanley Fischer) said overtly that the Fed should take on a "third mandate", that of financial market stability. Today, it de facto if not de jure acts to support financial markets. It is going to stop its balance sheet runoff and interest rate increase program in response to the December stock market drops. This support has changed the nature of the game from dividends to chasing appreciation, since there the Fed is all but explicitly supporting the market. And it's not just here but also in the world's 2nd largest economy, China.

Oh and by the way, I listen to Bloomberg radio for financial market commentary most mornings. And I read The Economist for further observations.

I'm not heavily exposed to the stock market. But there are people I respect who have been, and are today, "all-in" on the stock market. And they've done quite well. I can only provide my perspective, FWIW, and YMMV. I support informed decisions.

As always ask yourself this: When, in your lifetime, has the best answer to a complex problem been "leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out"?

As opposed to the government getting involved? I'll take "leave it alone" every time when it comes to the economy. Central planning failed spectacularly under every Soviet-era communist government and those that have tried emulating it more recently (see Venezuela) have met similar results.

TL;DR: raise federal minimum wage and the workers can quit and go elsewhere when a manager pulls this crap.

When you increase the minimum wage, you drive companies to invest in automation. You're going to see the jobs that used to be minimum wage positions eroded more and more. You can see the effects in American Samoa for yourself. Trying to demand something exist by government decree doesn't make it so any more than it clothes the emperor.

This is basic supply and demand. By raising the price of labor, you decrease the demand for it. Workers aren't going to be able to quit and go elsewhere because the effects of this reduce the number of jobs for them to go to, which means that they're going to stay put and deal with the new demands.

Are you making reference to these companies?
https://amp.businessinsider.co...

Because if you are, then your pantry must be filled with overly processed GMO'd crap.

There are hundreds of thousands of brands out there not owned by the companies listed in then pic.

Whether you chose to seek them out is another question. If you live in Europe, ironically your beloved small corner store brands are definitely owned by the same companies.

If you're in America, at least Walmart gives these small brands the opportunity to get shelf space against those companies you're deriding. Amazon? Forget about it, you're going up against huge AMS and AMG campaigns.

Want to help small companies? Go to big stores and buy them. It's that easy.

Luckily, Americans have More scientists getting elected to public office every election cycle.

I'm a bit more worried that intelligent scientists have avoided public office because they know better, so is this a "bumper-crop" of education addicts who couldn't find a job elsewhere?

A PhD in gender studies doesn't exactly do our nation any favors.

Luckily, Americans have More scientists getting elected to public office every election cycle.

Huawei's "big ambitions" were not without controversy. The director in the interview conveniently neglected to mention that they are under investigation for wire fraud, money laundering, and evading international sanctions against Iran, have been caught red-handed engaging in industrial espionage, and has a bonus system for employees who engage in theft of US trade secrets.

Why won't the FBI declassify the Uranium One documents? Who was FBI director at the time of the Uranium One deal? Why didn't Mueller recuse himself in the so-called "Russia investigation"?

The Clinton-Russia Coverup continues...

Really, we're still on the Uranium one deal? Fox News, of all outlets, debunked this over a year ago.

From the linked article: "The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not," Smith said. "A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the US to Russia."

There is plenty for which to criticize Hillary Clinton. You don't have to resort conspiracy theories.

7 European drug companies were fine .5 B, in which multiple ppl died from lack of a good drug, while Google was charged 5 B for requiring search/chrome on Android, if mobile phone company wanted to use play store. How many ppl died? None. How many businesses were forced to install play store? None.
here we see that Europe is going after Google for basically charging too little. look, I believe in going after companies for monopolistic actions. To be honest, these companies need to be broken up. But, those fines are still out of line, esp the android one, and even the ads.

I can't argue with you on any of those points. Whole Foods used to have a great selection, and now it does NOT.
 
See the two star review average.
 
Take a look at this thread..
 
  Another debate
 
  Business Insider gripes about it.
 
You see, you have an angry mob of people now because Bezos bought a healthy business and then drained it of all its blood like a swarm of giant Alaskan mosquitoes attacking a large cow. He destroyed the brand that everyone trusted and now wants US to come crawling back to him? No thank you.

MoviePass did not have a business plan. It was a pump-and-dump stock scheme to enrich insiders who cashed out on the stock. These insiders were a mix of Indian and Floridian conmen.

https://www.businessinsider.com/moviepass-owner-emerged-from-indian-company-accused-of-massive-fraud-2018-7

And you don't think male CEOs have pulled crap like that?

They surely have pulled crap like that.

The fun is when people go into denial that it is even possible for a woman to pull crap like that. In fact, a large number of people believe and claim that Elizabeth holmes is the victim in all of this. https://www.businessinsider.co... I wonder what he thinks today? Anyhow, we have been force fed the concept that women are not only capable of being CEOs - of course they are - but that they are remarkably better than men. Even just being a mother makes you a better CEO http://fortune.com/2015/05/07/...

So while in an equality based system - yes women can be just as qualified to run a company as men - we aren't in an equality based system, we are in one that states that men are inferior to woman in the matter of leading companies .

And that is simply bullshit. But we can look forward to more women grifters taking advantage of the political climate.

He's giving nuclear technology to a nation that hates Israel and funds and supplies terrorists.

Wake up dude, this is 2019. Saudi Arabia does not hate Israel. In fact, by all indications, they have mutual goals against regional enemy Iran.

The companies all declined to discuss the threats, and it is not clear if any of the hacks were successful.

Meanwhile, Wells Fargo customers have been finding that their direct deposits aren't being deposited. Sounds pretty successful to me.

All your base belongs to us.

Are you under the delusion that European pharmaceutical companies don't make a profit?

No, and he didn't even imply that. The point is however, that the way medicines are bought here means that the prices of drugs are lower. The companies still make a profit off of them, but we spend overall less money on drugs, because of things like collective bargaining.

Take something like insulin. The price of insulin in the US doubled from 2012 to 2016, and it's not because the product itself has change or consumption has skyrocketed. Quoting the article:

“It’s not that individuals are using more insulin or that new products are particularly innovative or provide immense benefits,” Jeannie Fuglesten Biniek, a senior researcher at HCCI and the report’s co-author said in a phone interview.

“Use is pretty flat, and the price changes are occurring in both older and newer products. That surprised me. The exact same products are costing double,” she said.

And one of the 3 main manufacturers of insulin is Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmacompany. So yes, European pharma companies are raking in a lot of money thanks to in no small part the american medical system. Now keep in mind, this is not some new wonder drug, insulin has been around for decades at this point, the manufacturing process has been honed down and is extremely efficient. A study from 2017 estimated the cost of production to be as follows:

After analyzing expenses for ingredients, production, and delivery, among other things, the researchers contend that the price for a year's supply of human insulin could be $48 to $71 a person and between $78 and $133 for analog insulins, which are genetically altered forms that are known as rapid or long-acting treatments. Examples of analog insulins include Humalog, Lantus, and Novolog.

Put another way, the study estimated the cost of production for a vial of human insulin is between $2.28 and $3.42, while the production cost for a vial of most analog insulins is between $3.69 and $6.16, according to the study in BMJ Global Health. Meanwhile, the median prices paid by more than two dozen countries for human insulin were 1.2 to 1.8 times greater than estimated prices. Median prices for other types of insulin were also higher: Lantus, which is sold by Sanofi (SNY), was 5.6 to 7.8 times higher; Humalog, which is sold by Eli Lilly (LLY), were at 2.7 to 3.7 times higher; and Novolog, a Novo Nordisk (NVO) treatment, was 2.6 to 3.5 times greater.

Note: the siggested figures there are not the costs of manufacturing, they're suggested price-points at which the companies would still make a profit on the product. And the actual numbers are global medians. In the US, the average price for a year's supply is now around $5700 dollars a year (from the previous link). Depending on the type of insulin, that's a markup of anywhere from 100 % to around 640 %. On a life-saving chemical that people depend on daily. That's insane. This is only possible because even though there's competition in theory, the highly more privatized nature of the US pharma/medical sector has allowed for all the three major players to raise their costs in tandem, while simultaneously making no significant changes/improvements on the drug itself.

The commercialized nature of the system means it doesn't optimize itself for cost-efficiency or availability, it optimizes for maximal profit. Insulin is cheap to make, so obviously the companies sell it for very cheap in countries with lower incomes or just a better regulated health care system. This

And there is a massive push by the Chinese government to 're-educate' the ethnic Uyghur Muslims in western China, at an unprecedented scale.

What are you talking about? High speed rail is wildly successful in every country that builds it. It always makes an operating profit within a few years after it opens (even Taiwan's), even our nation's own Acela Express makes "a profit of about $41 per passenger."

So on what basis do you claim that it "isn't working"?

Just as we tech people say. Lets hire a convinced black hat hacker, as your IT security expert, because they would know how it is done. Lets hire a lawyer convicted in insider trading

You've got your facts wrong; he's never been convicted. The CNBC article and Slashdot summary are rather ambiguous in their phrasing, hence your understandable confusion, but if you check other reporting on the story, you'll see that what's actually going on is that he's just now being accused of crimes committed in 2011 and 2012, as well as 2015 and 2016. Apple didn't hire a convicted inside trader and he's never been charged with insider trading prior to now.

In fact, so far as Apple's response to his activities go, they put him on a leave of absence last summer when they were first notified that he was being investigated, then fired him themselves a few weeks later when their internal investigation turned up evidence of wrongdoing. The SEC is now following up with formal charges of their own, again, for the first time.

Somebody posted this up the page, https://www.businessinsider.co...

It's not that easy in China, actually. Check out these nail houses. China has strengthened the property rights dramatically since the 50s.

Although China has a large population, the population density is also high, so there are a lot of wide-open spaces across the country.

Exactly, the US Mint wanted to make the jump to online sales and spur on coin collecting by offering free shipping and taking credit cards. It might also have something to do with people didn't like the new $1 coin. Banks were giving them out for people to open new accounts because collectors weren't requesting them and they had huge stocks of them in the vault. The company I worked for actually paid all employees with $10 of these coins that they "agreed" to take from the bank (turns out the bank sold them to my company at $0.90 per coin so the could make room in the vault.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mint-ends-the-dollar-coin-scam-for-airline-miles-2011-7

However the most outrageous story CreditCardForum has heard was from a man who reportedly ordered over $2,400,000 worth of dollar coins in total, since the inception of the program. Because the U.S. Mint quickly placed restrictions on how many and how often a given person could buy, this man claimed to have a vast network of friends, family members, and personal mail boxes to accept his constant flow of deliveries.

Who's going to pay to shuttle migrating animals across the border?

Even a wall won't stop the most dedicated border crosser. The best it can do is slow them down. With or without a wall, you still need boots on the ground, maybe also some drones in the air.

How about a border maze made of cheap chain link fences instead of a wall of slats? Then animals can get across the border on their own, and by the time a human makes it through, the border patrol will be on the other side waiting for them.

Or (see link above) if you really want Democrats to fund a wall, build it out of solar panels! Maybe even use the electricity to power a bullet train along the border from San Diego through Yuma and El Paso to Brownsville, TX. Let's do this!

Think of all the spam bots and election tampering bots being down for a day or so. All those muh Russia types should be cheering.

You've got that backwards. This is about protecting russian civilian infrastructure from retaliation. Their military operations will still be online. They aren't cutting themselves off from the internet to do anyone else any favors. The time-frame overlaps with Felonious DJT's threat to shutdown american cyber-defenses again. It should also be viewed in context of Russia's liquidating their holdings of American debt instruments, further insulating them from another form of possible retaliation.

Indeed, the Norwegian prison system focuses on rehabilitation and has incredibly low recidivism rates. So much so, that at some point they had prisons that were empty, if I'm remembering correctly. https://www.businessinsider.co...

There is certainly the question of culture—Norway is not the USA—but a capitalist system where many of the prisons are privately owned and have contracts for minimum occupancy with the state certainly only benefits shareholders and not society at large. Recidivism rates in the USA are high, and that's just how prison owners like it. Think about that for a moment: there's someone that owns a prison and honestly goes to sleep at night hoping people commit crimes, and implicitly, that there are many victims of crime. It's monstrous.

As Zen boy shows, the top 5 fines against companies come against American companies
Lets look at them.
1) Microsoft was fined more than Servier, who likely cost ppl's lives. Please.
2) Good with going after Qualcomm/Apple. I do think that 1.2B was excessive considering that Servier was .5B, but apparently, so does Qualcomm and now, the EU justice.
3) Intel being charged 1.45 B for lowering their price to get others to use Intel over AMD? Please. That is pure competition at work. Thankfully, EU Justice is look at it, and will likely either kill it or cut it way down
4) Totally great with EU going after Google for the Google shopping. That entire episode is the very definition of monopoly abuse, just like Servier was. Of course, 2.7B strikes me as excessive considering that BOTH Servier and Telefónica were fined about 1/6 and 1/10 of that. However, there is no doubt that all 3 were abusive monopolies.
5) Then you have the recent Android action. Google allows you to install android, as you see fit.
HOWEVER, if you want Google's help AND Play store, then you have to agree to install Google's apps. I see nothing wrong with that.
Of course, paying them to install only Google's android as well as search is an issue. BUT, $5B, when they charge servier .5B for killing ppl, but otherwise doing the same thing? No. That makes no sense.

So, yeah, this IS about going after American tech companies.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

https://www.businessinsider.co...

If you want the actual proposed tax rate by O'Cortez it's %70 after 10 MILLION dollars of annual INCOME, not "wealth" but INCOME, you easily fact checked lying idiot.

When you stop lying I'm sure your little traitor's bitch heart will just stop ticking right there.

They're pics so I couldn't copy the text, https://www.businessinsider.co..., the scroll down a couple for Strawberries.

Well, here. There are plenty more from plenty of various sources. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/2...
https://www.recode.net/2019/1/...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine...
https://www.newsweek.com/amazo...
https://www.kare11.com/article...
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.businessinsider.co...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a...

Nice sentiment, but you have grossly understated the genesis of ISP monopolies and what it would take to foster competition.
Saying that the monopolies are government granted is misrepresenting the problem.


I agree that there are many anti-competitive laws pushed through by kickbacks that lead to court battles and delays such as the Google Fiber rollout.

But the problem with monopolies is that they can leverage other monetary streams to lean on smaller competition.
Fixing a few regulations isn't going to miraculously solve the ISP open market dilemma that America faces.
This lack of an open market is stifling growth and innovation and we need Net Neutrality to ensure a level field for startups and small business.

Better be careful about doing it in the West these days, or you might end up in jail.