So what about the FCC, Congress, and everybody who's ever written on the issue? Did I travel time making little changes here and there just to create the big lie all for you? No, I assure you even if possible, it's not worth my time. Like I said, live in ignorance if you like. Of screw your tinfoil hat on a little tighter and decide I am the Bavarian Illuminati. At least that way, I get to be amused. BTW, the moon really is made of green cheese. We faked the moon landing and all that junk about basalt like rock to preserve our cheese reserves.
As for the rest, the actual issue is that the market doesn't really support entry unless you do have that exclusive. It's a costly play but wildly profitable in the long term. But coming in as the second provider is even harder to manage. So that leaves us either a permanently failed market or government entry in hopes of making market forces work well enough that we don't have to have a regulated natural monopoly.
Sure, it is NOW because the exclusivity was banned by Congress. Be ignorant, I don't care, it's not my problem if you don't want to believe every report on the situation ever, the FCC, and Congress.
And then the good guys will suffer when the bad guys find a way to exploit the back door themselves, just like the last time the FBI was granted a mandated back door into telecoms equipment.
That last one probably DID harm patients. They were so bogged down without their IT systems that they had to stop accepting 911 patients for a week. That means people needing help NOW had to wait a little longer while they were taken to a more distant hospital. There's a reasonable probability that there were more incidents of late or wrong medication as well. It's hard to assess exactly who might have been harmed and how much from that.
By the same token, they went with Billy because Joe, who would have fixed the backups and the UPS battery, costs more. Of course he costs more because he does more.
Billy probably used to cost more too, but he needed enough contracts to feed his family so he gave the customers what they want.
There's the first failure. Everyone and his dog routinely requires network access to do updates. Often they won't even document what ports/IPs are required.
The problem is that most of those exclusive agreements were made illegal some time ago, AFTER a single company used it to embed itself into a region. That was before things tended to be put online. However, the fact that federal legislation happened aimed specifically at exclusive franchise agreements, it stands to reason they existed, yes?
The next trick was to make exclusive agreements with condos and ap0artments (also shot down finally).
If you actually want to see one, try your local county seat. They might let you skim the microfiche from the time your area first got cable (or they might have shredded the lot since it was some time ago.
Well, you certainly do live up to your name. Practically every cable TV operation has or had an exclusive franchise. Try Google but note that many local governments are loath to admit to something that smells that corrupt. I have never seen an area that actually had a choice of cable provider.
I have heard of a few rare places where there was no mandated exclusivity, but there was still no competition, even in border areas where the provider's cables were equidistant from a home.
I can understand the assumption, it's reasonable. However, someone above reported an "upgrade" happening on an unattended machine with no mouse or keyboard attached.
It's bad enough paying for reconstruction that is in the path of danger, but it's a little harder to swallow helping those who also profited big by both creating and denying the danger as well.
In other words, the markets were far too unhealthy to provide any benefits since even where there were two choices, they tacitly agreed not to compete very hard.
If they build sea walls, they'll be disappointed when the water rises on their side anyway because they're on top of porous limestone.
Meanwhile, you know the top 1% (or 0.1%) will cook up some scheme where their pet legislators will claim they're too big to fail and the rest of us will end up paying for the lost value. Even for the ones who own the very industries that are contributing heavily to the problem while they deny it exists.
Yes, we absolutely should not subsidize the land that is likely to be under water in a few decades. We should also be sure to inform people of the problem. It would help if we didn't have so-called respectable legislators telling people it won't be a problem.
It would be a good idea to make it clear that "this property is expected to be LITERALLY under water in x years" is part of the disclosure laws. It is, after all, a known defect.
The analysis is complete, it won't work. Imagine you are sitting outside in a low area a way away from the coast. Suddenly the ground gets wet and then you're in a puddle. It just comes up out of the ground. It's the high tide.
Science also shows us that the ground is far more permeable in Florida than Louisiana. Levies don't work when you can't reach reasonably non-porous ground.
Slashdot Mirror
So what about the FCC, Congress, and everybody who's ever written on the issue? Did I travel time making little changes here and there just to create the big lie all for you? No, I assure you even if possible, it's not worth my time. Like I said, live in ignorance if you like. Of screw your tinfoil hat on a little tighter and decide I am the Bavarian Illuminati. At least that way, I get to be amused. BTW, the moon really is made of green cheese. We faked the moon landing and all that junk about basalt like rock to preserve our cheese reserves.
As for the rest, the actual issue is that the market doesn't really support entry unless you do have that exclusive. It's a costly play but wildly profitable in the long term. But coming in as the second provider is even harder to manage. So that leaves us either a permanently failed market or government entry in hopes of making market forces work well enough that we don't have to have a regulated natural monopoly.
Sure, it is NOW because the exclusivity was banned by Congress. Be ignorant, I don't care, it's not my problem if you don't want to believe every report on the situation ever, the FCC, and Congress.
What do you expect from someone with an onion tied to his belt?
And then the good guys will suffer when the bad guys find a way to exploit the back door themselves, just like the last time the FBI was granted a mandated back door into telecoms equipment.
That last one probably DID harm patients. They were so bogged down without their IT systems that they had to stop accepting 911 patients for a week. That means people needing help NOW had to wait a little longer while they were taken to a more distant hospital. There's a reasonable probability that there were more incidents of late or wrong medication as well. It's hard to assess exactly who might have been harmed and how much from that.
By the same token, they went with Billy because Joe, who would have fixed the backups and the UPS battery, costs more. Of course he costs more because he does more.
Billy probably used to cost more too, but he needed enough contracts to feed his family so he gave the customers what they want.
There's the first failure. Everyone and his dog routinely requires network access to do updates. Often they won't even document what ports/IPs are required.
The problem is that most of those exclusive agreements were made illegal some time ago, AFTER a single company used it to embed itself into a region. That was before things tended to be put online. However, the fact that federal legislation happened aimed specifically at exclusive franchise agreements, it stands to reason they existed, yes?
The next trick was to make exclusive agreements with condos and ap0artments (also shot down finally).
If you actually want to see one, try your local county seat. They might let you skim the microfiche from the time your area first got cable (or they might have shredded the lot since it was some time ago.
It's nice to hear about competition actually happening.
Well, you certainly do live up to your name. Practically every cable TV operation has or had an exclusive franchise. Try Google but note that many local governments are loath to admit to something that smells that corrupt. I have never seen an area that actually had a choice of cable provider.
I have heard of a few rare places where there was no mandated exclusivity, but there was still no competition, even in border areas where the provider's cables were equidistant from a home.
Comcast was not a telco when it built out the cable infrastructure.
Nevertheless, they got tax breaks, help with eminent domain, access to utility poles and a sweetheart monopoly franchise deal while building out.
I'm sure the ecosystem CAN adjust, but we may not enjoy it and it will be expensive. There were no humans back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.
In a system as complex as the atmosphere, 1% can be a lot. A far smaller volume of fluorocarbons created quite a problem.
So how did their trousers do?
He may be a bit upset when he only gets half of what he expected out of the reverse mortgage that was supposed to fund his retirement.
I can understand the assumption, it's reasonable. However, someone above reported an "upgrade" happening on an unattended machine with no mouse or keyboard attached.
It's bad enough paying for reconstruction that is in the path of danger, but it's a little harder to swallow helping those who also profited big by both creating and denying the danger as well.
In other words, the markets were far too unhealthy to provide any benefits since even where there were two choices, they tacitly agreed not to compete very hard.
That's about it. It is sufficiently porous that in some low lying areas you can actually see the water coming up out of the ground during a high tide.
Because the drone costs THEM money. People are always more careful when some part of the bill will come to THEM.
If they build sea walls, they'll be disappointed when the water rises on their side anyway because they're on top of porous limestone.
Meanwhile, you know the top 1% (or 0.1%) will cook up some scheme where their pet legislators will claim they're too big to fail and the rest of us will end up paying for the lost value. Even for the ones who own the very industries that are contributing heavily to the problem while they deny it exists.
Yes, we absolutely should not subsidize the land that is likely to be under water in a few decades. We should also be sure to inform people of the problem. It would help if we didn't have so-called respectable legislators telling people it won't be a problem.
It would be a good idea to make it clear that "this property is expected to be LITERALLY under water in x years" is part of the disclosure laws. It is, after all, a known defect.
The analysis is complete, it won't work. Imagine you are sitting outside in a low area a way away from the coast. Suddenly the ground gets wet and then you're in a puddle. It just comes up out of the ground. It's the high tide.
OK, that's settled. Now imagine if the water bubbled up 1000 times faster...
Science also shows us that the ground is far more permeable in Florida than Louisiana. Levies don't work when you can't reach reasonably non-porous ground.
Alas, Florida has porous rock under it, so the water will go under any barrier they might try putting up.