Slashdot Mirror

Data is expensive. OK?

The defense of all monopolies and oligopolies. 'It's not that we really want to charge as much as humanly possible for this thing because we know people want it and have nowhere else to go, it's just that it's really really expensive you see..."

Large parts of the US have no competition on the mobile networking side of things, which basically allows the companies to dictate the price. This is basic economics. It's right there in the summary:

Meanwhile, a monopoly over business data connectivity generally keeps consumer mobile prices high. According to the FCC's own data, 73 percent of the special access market (which feeds everything from ATMs to cellular towers) is controlled by one ISP.

Meanwhile, while we're a relatively small and a sparsely populated country here in Finland, we've got 2 major telecoms that have 4G coverage of most of the country. And whaddayaknow, once some competition appears, suddenly it turns out that data is not so expensive after all. My current plan has unlimited text messages, unlimited domestic call, unlimited (actually unlimited, no datacap) 5G (in theory, in practice the network is still 4G, we're in early phases of 5G infrastructure building) data in the Nordics + 15 gigs of outside the Nordics EU roaming data at at 30 euros a month.

How are we doing on gasoline price, against the same group of countries?

The real question is, how's your infrastructure doing? 'Cause last I checked, according to american engineers, it's pretty dismal. See, the reason gas is expensive here is that we tax the shit out of it (75 % of the price of gas is tax here), which we then use to you know, actually maintain the road and bridge infrastructure. Moreover, gas being more expensive reduces the incentive of people to drive and actually has lead to fast development of public transit. I own a car, but it's actually faster for me to use public transportation to get from my front door to my main office because turns out the subway bypasses traffic jams, and it saves me money; for less than the price of refueling my car full once, I get one months unlimited use of Helsinki's puvlic transit network consisting of buses, a couple metro lines, a tram system, ferries and trains.

In the mid-to-long term, I'm actually all for gradually increasing the gas tax even more to drive people away from using it and to adopt modes of transit less destructive to the planetary ecosystem, because I really like breathing air and would like my potential kids and grandkids to be able to do it as well.

But yay for cheap gas! Never mind tomorrow or actual long-term planning like intelligent tool using apes that have an understanding of their own resource use and its impact on societies and the planet overall. Let the planet burn, as long as there's cheap gas for everyone amirite? Or maybe, just maybe we could for once take a hint from people with a long running relationship with the environment who understand that we're not outside the system but a part of it and we can't just keep exploiting it because we like fast cars and insanely inefficient combustion engines?

Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.

-Alanis Obomsawin, a member of Abenaki tribe from Canada, talking to author Ted Poole, from the book “Who is the Chairman of This Meeting?” (published in 1972)

But almost all public infrastructure in USA are in very bad shape. USA got a D+ rating in 2017 from (ASCE) American Society of Civil Engineers https://www.infrastructurerepo...

As for the "least important" of all five, you're assuming from a state of none of them existing.

Absolutely not and by the way stop asserting you can read my mind:

Transportation Rating: D
Drinking Water Rating: D
Energy Rating: D+

Full Infrastructure Report Card

Next time do 5 minutes of research with Google.

Resources are already pretty good. Repeat for broadband vs. X for the entire list.

See above, the facts disagree with you.

As for the "least important" of all five, you're assuming from a state of none of them existing.

Absolutely not and by the way stop asserting you can read my mind:

Transportation Rating: D
Drinking Water Rating: D
Energy Rating: D+

Full Infrastructure Report Card

Next time do 5 minutes of research with Google.

Resources are already pretty good. Repeat for broadband vs. X for the entire list.

See above, the facts disagree with you.

As for the "least important" of all five, you're assuming from a state of none of them existing.

Absolutely not and by the way stop asserting you can read my mind:

Transportation Rating: D
Drinking Water Rating: D
Energy Rating: D+

Full Infrastructure Report Card

Next time do 5 minutes of research with Google.

Resources are already pretty good. Repeat for broadband vs. X for the entire list.

See above, the facts disagree with you.

As for the "least important" of all five, you're assuming from a state of none of them existing.

Absolutely not and by the way stop asserting you can read my mind:

Transportation Rating: D
Drinking Water Rating: D
Energy Rating: D+

Full Infrastructure Report Card

Next time do 5 minutes of research with Google.

Resources are already pretty good. Repeat for broadband vs. X for the entire list.

See above, the facts disagree with you.

In 2013, 66,749 bridges were considered structurally deficient. This is a 17% decrease in the last 4 years. I think this should count as good news.

If President Trump really wants to create American jobs I can think of a trillion's worth of core infrastructure projects that are "shovel ready".

ASCE 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure[Spoiler: It's a D.]

It’s Time to Fix America’s Infrastructure. Here’s Where to Start

New USDOT Report on Highway, Transit Conditions Reveals America’s $926 Billion Infrastructure Investment Need

Oh really? According to the American Society of Civil Engineers the country gets a D+ on infrastructure.

We could spend less than 1% of our GDP on defense and still have a larger military than most countries out there.

Thanks for making my point.

Second, what infrastructure? Be specific.

Is "public" a specific enough modifier for you?

I was a truck driver for years, and if you're going to mention highways and bridges - don't bother. You're wrong.

I don't find your personal anecdotal experience very compelling. I find multiple reports from credible sources far more convincing.

We are responsible for quite a few things, military-wise...[blah blah blah]

I asked for accomplishments, not responsibilities. Care to try again?

Did you even read that link?

No. Why would I? All I did was accurately observe that you didn't add anything to the discussion.

I defined "threat" by the only measure it should be defined: based on the actual reality of the situation [...] Is that the reality? Yes.

Uh huh. Another prick on the internet who claims to know the true reality of the situation.

We face a much larger threat from people who can't use their brain properly.

I assume that would that include people who claim that North Korea "shot a missle over Japan", right?

Jobs are not a limited resource. Jobs are dependent on things we need to get done.

That is not correct, jobs are indeed a limited resource. They are limited by the amount of money that is worth spending on them.

There are many jobs that need to be done, that aren't currently getting done, because no one wants to pay for them.

http://www.infrastructurerepor...

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we need to invest $3.6 Trillion in infrastructure by 2020.

Now I'll grant you, they are biased to make that number high, they profit from it. But that being said, our roads are not new, China is going to build more road in the next 5 years than the US has built in the past 30 years. They already have more roads than we have, they'll be double our size in short order because they are investing in this.

We are not because no one wants to pay for it.

So jobs are indeed limited, because a job implies a paycheck, and someone has to be on the other end of that paycheck.

thanks for your pointless sophistry

the simple fact is we do not fund american infrastructure enough, and this hurts our economy in relation to places that do

it's not complicated nor difficult to understand

here, educate yourself:

http://www.economist.com/news/...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fa...

http://www.infrastructurerepor...

after you have some actual understanding of a topic, only then should you speak on the topic

Hey, the US could use some of those things too! http://www.infrastructurerepor...

Which is offset by the fact that it's not contributing to huge corporate profits

Citation — comparing the profits of American vs. Swede's ISPs — needed.

doesn't help pay for ridiculous executive bonuses

Citation comparing executive bonuses needed likewise.

And the government run one might actually spend money on maintaining their infrastructure

Like the bridges, sewers, and other government-run infrastructure are maintained in the US?

Take the parasites out of the equation, and the economics changes a lot.

Please, cite numbers. Rough estimates would do...

Because the for-profit model says "you'll get what we give you, when we feel like giving it to you, and we'll raise your prices any time we wish in order to keep profits up".

No, that's only true about monopolies. Governments ought to ensure, there is competition in every market — but that does not mean, they should be entering the market themselves. That would be the worst outcome, for government is itself a monopoly.

The folks killed by the I-35W bridge collapse beg to differ.

And before you object that anecdotes are not data, the ASCE thinks that America is barely passing overall.

Water supply is actually often unjustly reviled. But don't worry, I'll add a few to your list to copensate
- civilian infrastructure
- transportiation (for example, this here really reads like satire)
- income inequality
- enforcement of antitrust legislation
- high-level government corruption

Ha! The potholes, the bridge collapses, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Economist, and pretty much anyone that has ever seen a road in the United States, knows that that America's transit infrastructure, it's roads, it's mass transit, everything is shit. Yes, it was once the envy of the world, but that sixty years ago.

While it is true that roads are paid for with gas an vehicle taxes and fees, the amount of revenue being generated under the current regime is demonstrably insufficient, and has been for decades. After 30 years of repeated tax cuts, with increased demand for basic services, we do have a self-imposed revenue problem.

Interesting. There's never been a place I've lived that had the money to really keep up with road repairs. The current example for me would be Spokane, WA, where the only street repairs the city can afford are arterials. A decent (not even a good, mind you) gravel road is better than many of the streets in the neighborhood in which I live. Both directions on many are like driving on rumble strips, quite literally. Divots a fairly consistent 4 inches or so apart.

The road system in the US is decaying faster than it's being repaired.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ which is run by the American Society for Civil Engineers.

Infrastructure decay is an enormous problem, and the funding just barely covers the cost of doing work to gloss over the fact that the infrastructure is failing faster than it's being repaired on average.