Slashdot Mirror
The 700MHz Question
mstrchf07 writes "The FCC will soon be auctioning off the rights to use the 700MHz spectrum for wireless communications, with the winner being able to choose the direction of wireless services development in the US. With stakes this high, is the playing field fair, and are business needs trumping consumer and technological interests?"
just like early years of internet. some source that is open and free should take custody of it until it is no longer vulnerable.
Read radical news here
specifically:
In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce.
If you don't get why that is amusing and appropriate - this about the nature of the Soviet Russia jokes, and what that says about the US.
If I understand the article correctly, it would seem that 700 Mhz spectrum would only give you 15 MB/s of available bandwidth if it used similar compression techniques to 802.11g. If, as the article suggests, this spectrum were to be used for some big WISP, maybe Google, it wouldn't seem to me to be very viable as the available bandwidth would be split amongst LOTS of users in order to keep it cheap. Now, UMPCs and mobile devices conceivably need less bandwidth, but then, isn't that what we have wireless phone service for?
It seems to be like this article is a bunch of meaningless speculation about Google's plans for being a ubiquitous WISP.
My blog
With stakes this high, is the playing field fair, and are business needs trumping consumer and technological interests?
No. Yes. In that order.
They playing field is rarely fair when business is concerned. If corporate interest is involved, there is always a corporation able to affect the environment much more than any governmental regulation; and they will always affect the environment in their own favor, whether it is in the best interest of citizens or technology or progress or any other damned thing that doesn't have anything at all to do with "maximizing profits."
This is all stupid talk. Some corporation will end up in control of a public resource. The public will get fucked. That's how it works. That's how it always works.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Glad someone got it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
mstrchf07 asks ...are business needs trumping consumer and technological interests?
Of *course*!
And it's not even a matter of business needs, it's business greeds.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Just yesterday Newt Gingrich came on the George Stephenopolos(sp?) show and claimed that 70% of Americans support reduction in corporate taxes, 60% support abolition of capital gains tax etc etc. That would be alright if he is genuinely a fiscal conservative sincerely trying to reduce the size of the government. But he opened with "New Orleans is still a mess, ..." What? It is somehow the Govt's job to allow people sandwiched between Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi and the lake to build homes below sea level and keep pumping out water and spend couple of billion dollars in the levy system?
If Republicans would not take on people's unrealistic expectations from Govt what right they have to complain about Tax and Spend Democrats?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Well, it is an interesting use of the joke. First, Yakov Smirnoff's version of the joke was usually to have the reverse of America, but have the American version make sense, but the Russian version paint a bad picture of Russia. The GGP post reverses this, having the Russian thing make sense and the American be corrupt. Since the joke is about reversal in the first place, reversing the reversal is in itself a bit funny.
Also, the jokes were originally meant to be a bit dark and ironic, and then used as a Slashdot cliche they were usually ironically ironic, resulting in a sort of nonsensical whimsey. Now, another layer of irony is added, almost returning the joke to its original sense, but I would say not quite to its original sense. So much irony has basically made it a non-joke, and simply a piercing critique of current US policy. It's pointing out that as ridiculously backwards as Soviet Russia was, it still may have been less backwards than we are now.
Now, did I really have to explain myself like that?
They didn't always. I'm old enough to remember times when it was different.
There actually were politicians who remembered that one of the big sources of the depression of the 30s was that people didn't have money to actually buy crap, so what was produced could not be sold, products piling up and businesses going under because of it. So they tried to keep at least enough in our pockets so we could go 'n spend.
Unfortunately, few politicians still remember those days. Most that are on the helm today only remember the 60s, where the aforementioned politicians (those who did remember) were in control, and all our current politicians learned that people always had enough money to spend, so shifting more money towards those that already have can't hurt too much, we'll keep buying.
I just wonder: What should we buy crap with when we barely earn enough to get by? Let's imagine I make DVD players. Now, you want one, I want one, a lot of people want one. When each of us has 2000 bucks to spend, we'll both buy one. When I got 4000 and you got zip, I'll buy one. You can't afford it, so you won't. I only need one player, though (what would I do with two?). So instead of two DVD players sold, it's only one.
Extrapolate for the economy on a larger scale.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.