You have a point about companies requiring an incentive to invest, but last time I checked, margins for these enormous cable companies is about 8% -- not a bad ROI at all. Also, your "basic economics" argument is fairly blind in that it relies on economics to solve every problem. If we depended on "basic economics" for all of our progress, the Internet would probably never have been invented in the first place. It was developed by ARPA which, as a military research agency, is not governed or funded by "basic economics" but rather by cold war paranoia.
Occasionally, fixing a problem or making progress requires something that doesn't make sense in terms of "basic economics."
But if you want to beat the economics drum, consider the South Korean model wherein the infrastructure is funded by the government and shared by private enterprises that rent the infrastructure and compete on service and performance aspects rather than infrastructure related ones. I'd be willing to bet the margins are lower for these companies, but I suspect that blazing fast internet is much cheaper there. Not as cushy for the providers perhaps, but certainly better for the broadband customers and probably the overall economy as well.
I'm telling you, it's not the FCC or federal laws that prevent google from Google from muscling in, it's local politics, goaded on by the existing monopolies, that is getting in the way.
Were it not for lobbyists and the vested interests of the current monopolies, it would be a simple matter for legislators at the local or state level to legislate mandatory access for competitors to existing rights of way. And nobody will be digging here, by the way. All of the telephone wires are on poles in LA.
This is easily done and there are some obvious precedents. When the US broke up AT&T (i believe it was 1984) they required that AT&T lease their infrastructure to other companies for a mandated rate. Another possibility -- as you say -- is for the government to build the infrastructure with public funds. There's plenty of competition in the trucking/shipping industry which makes use of public infrastructure (airports, roads, etc.).
And the FCC is NOT to blame for the lack of competition. Anyone who says otherwise has to explain the complete lack of FCC interference when Google deployed fiber in Kansas City, Provo UT, and Austin, TX. I believe these cities were able to lure Google's infrastructure investment with local incentives and/or lack of local restrictions.
The end is near my ass. I'm in Los Angeles and I still only have one option for broadband access at any reasonable speed -- and it's Time Warner Cable. The end is nowhere near until we somehow break the monopolistic (or duopolistic) stranglehold these bastards enjoy in any given market. Apparently this stranglehold is in large part perpetuated by political deals these ISPs have made with local government (e.g., the City of Los Angeles) wherein the city gets kickbacks from the ISP for rights of way, etc. Because local governments are dependent on these kickbacks to support their budget, there is no competition. It's a form of payola.
Agreed. Of COURSE Bruce Schneier can't be trusted. I believe he himself would say, "trust is something you must determine for yourself." That said, I don't think there are many folks better at it than he is.
I merely wanted to point out your idiocy in blaming only Clinton for the bill when in fact the very text of the Bill was written and passed as law by a Congress with a Republican majority in both house and Senate. Nobody had a gun to their head either. This particular idiocy of yours is a lot like the idiocy where of blaming Obama for Congress passing a law and then shuts down the entire government because a minority of one house doesn't want the law that it helped to pass in the first place. Nobody had a gun to their head either.
Also, I feel I should point out that the post you initially responded to was not partisan in any way. What the fuck do you want to make it partisan for? Agenda much? You're doing it wrong.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was written by a Congress with a Republican majority in both Senate and House (the first time since the 50s this had happened). Blaming Clinton for it is pretty weak. It reminds me of blaming a certain other POTUS for a certain government shutdown that happened because Congress passed a law and then wanted to un-pass it.
Does anyone know how much has been dumped into the USF? And what it's been spent on? I have a sneaking suspicion it would be more than enough to build a nationwide fiber network.
The telecom industry is already subsidized (see Universal Service Fund) and it doesn't really work. On the other hand, shared infrastructure, something the government could invest in, apparently has great benefits in fostering competition in Korea, for example. The basic idea is that instead of letting ISPs build their own proprietary network, we build open, shared internet infrastructure and let ISPs share the infrastructure and compete for customers. This is sort of obliquely analagous to the breakup of AT&T in 1984. The government mandated that AT&T resell its network to long distance resellers and the prices of long distance plummeted over the next 10 years.
OK I'll buy that and I apologize for my impulsive post. I guess I was just put off by the cumersome, germanic quality of the word. I'm also wondering which roles, exactly, are 'non combat' roles. Sir Haig had the cooks, grooms, drivers, and batmen in combat roles at the First Battle of Ypres. Also still feeling that the use of this word in this context is both jargonistic and unnecessary.
HTTPS doesn't strictly require that you use any authority at all. You can use a self-signed certificate. Verification of the cert is hard, but not impossible. Also, the process of obtaining a cert from a CA doesn't require you to give up your private key.
I'm more inclined to trust Bruce Schneier who says "I trust the mathematics," than the authors of this sensationalist NYTimes article. To me, it seems like they completely lack any nuanced understanding of the information flow and its vulnerabilities and are merely depending on whatever third-hand analysis they might have gleaned from reading other amateur blogs.
I agree that going to the service providers (e.g., google, yahoo, apple, phone companies, etc.) or building a backdoor into the software is a good way to go about it, but I hardly think that means that the NSA is "winning the war on encryption."
Under the current grid you can get 10% to 20% of your power from wind & solar.
That's just from the grid. If you buy solar panels (or your own windmill), it could be a LOT higher.
Economic storage is a nut that is yet to be cracked (and in my mind one of the key factors holding back the industry). That is why you need base power from nuclear, coal or hydro.
You left out natural gas and cow turd power. You have an excellent, excellent point about storage being the problem. I personally would rather subsidize research in this area rather than subsidizing a nuclear power plant for the sake of power diversity.
I would also question you on why you are paying 14% more for cow power. Is it to reduce greenhouse gasses? The debate is still going if cow power helps or not. For most people adding another 6 inches of insulation in the attic would be cheaper and has a higher impact.
I personally think there's something amazing about using a waste product to generate useful energy. You don't even have to bring greenhouse gasses into the equation to justify use of cow power. Insulation is a good suggestion (esp. in Vermont).
Slashdot Mirror
STFI.
No, first step is to pronounce it "math" and not "maths," you fucking limeys.
Mod parent up!
TADAAA! That's how the US did it with AT&T and long distance in 1984. Long distance prices dropped like Felix Baumgartner.
*cough cough cough* PIPE DREAM *cough cough cough*
You have a point about companies requiring an incentive to invest, but last time I checked, margins for these enormous cable companies is about 8% -- not a bad ROI at all. Also, your "basic economics" argument is fairly blind in that it relies on economics to solve every problem. If we depended on "basic economics" for all of our progress, the Internet would probably never have been invented in the first place. It was developed by ARPA which, as a military research agency, is not governed or funded by "basic economics" but rather by cold war paranoia.
Occasionally, fixing a problem or making progress requires something that doesn't make sense in terms of "basic economics."
But if you want to beat the economics drum, consider the South Korean model wherein the infrastructure is funded by the government and shared by private enterprises that rent the infrastructure and compete on service and performance aspects rather than infrastructure related ones. I'd be willing to bet the margins are lower for these companies, but I suspect that blazing fast internet is much cheaper there. Not as cushy for the providers perhaps, but certainly better for the broadband customers and probably the overall economy as well.
I'm telling you, it's not the FCC or federal laws that prevent google from Google from muscling in, it's local politics, goaded on by the existing monopolies, that is getting in the way.
Were it not for lobbyists and the vested interests of the current monopolies, it would be a simple matter for legislators at the local or state level to legislate mandatory access for competitors to existing rights of way. And nobody will be digging here, by the way. All of the telephone wires are on poles in LA.
This is easily done and there are some obvious precedents. When the US broke up AT&T (i believe it was 1984) they required that AT&T lease their infrastructure to other companies for a mandated rate. Another possibility -- as you say -- is for the government to build the infrastructure with public funds. There's plenty of competition in the trucking/shipping industry which makes use of public infrastructure (airports, roads, etc.).
And the FCC is NOT to blame for the lack of competition. Anyone who says otherwise has to explain the complete lack of FCC interference when Google deployed fiber in Kansas City, Provo UT, and Austin, TX. I believe these cities were able to lure Google's infrastructure investment with local incentives and/or lack of local restrictions.
The end is near my ass. I'm in Los Angeles and I still only have one option for broadband access at any reasonable speed -- and it's Time Warner Cable. The end is nowhere near until we somehow break the monopolistic (or duopolistic) stranglehold these bastards enjoy in any given market. Apparently this stranglehold is in large part perpetuated by political deals these ISPs have made with local government (e.g., the City of Los Angeles) wherein the city gets kickbacks from the ISP for rights of way, etc. Because local governments are dependent on these kickbacks to support their budget, there is no competition. It's a form of payola.
Agreed. Of COURSE Bruce Schneier can't be trusted. I believe he himself would say, "trust is something you must determine for yourself." That said, I don't think there are many folks better at it than he is.
Am I the only one who is REALLY afraid of aliens trying to backdoor my cornhole?
Oh please! This is just an innocent foot-hunting Safari! Everybody knows it's easier to shoot your own foot than someone else's.
I merely wanted to point out your idiocy in blaming only Clinton for the bill when in fact the very text of the Bill was written and passed as law by a Congress with a Republican majority in both house and Senate. Nobody had a gun to their head either. This particular idiocy of yours is a lot like the idiocy where of blaming Obama for Congress passing a law and then shuts down the entire government because a minority of one house doesn't want the law that it helped to pass in the first place. Nobody had a gun to their head either.
Also, I feel I should point out that the post you initially responded to was not partisan in any way. What the fuck do you want to make it partisan for? Agenda much? You're doing it wrong.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was written by a Congress with a Republican majority in both Senate and House (the first time since the 50s this had happened). Blaming Clinton for it is pretty weak. It reminds me of blaming a certain other POTUS for a certain government shutdown that happened because Congress passed a law and then wanted to un-pass it.
Does anyone know how much has been dumped into the USF? And what it's been spent on? I have a sneaking suspicion it would be more than enough to build a nationwide fiber network.
+1
Check your telephone / internet bills people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_fund
The telecom industry is already subsidized (see Universal Service Fund) and it doesn't really work. On the other hand, shared infrastructure, something the government could invest in, apparently has great benefits in fostering competition in Korea, for example. The basic idea is that instead of letting ISPs build their own proprietary network, we build open, shared internet infrastructure and let ISPs share the infrastructure and compete for customers. This is sort of obliquely analagous to the breakup of AT&T in 1984. The government mandated that AT&T resell its network to long distance resellers and the prices of long distance plummeted over the next 10 years.
OK I'll buy that and I apologize for my impulsive post. I guess I was just put off by the cumersome, germanic quality of the word. I'm also wondering which roles, exactly, are 'non combat' roles. Sir Haig had the cooks, grooms, drivers, and batmen in combat roles at the First Battle of Ypres. Also still feeling that the use of this word in this context is both jargonistic and unnecessary.
Agreed. "warfighter" is a stupid fucking word (er, portmanteau).
HTTPS doesn't strictly require that you use any authority at all. You can use a self-signed certificate. Verification of the cert is hard, but not impossible. Also, the process of obtaining a cert from a CA doesn't require you to give up your private key.
Mod parent up. Nobody talking about this even seems to have the vaguest understanding of encryption.
I'm more inclined to trust Bruce Schneier who says "I trust the mathematics," than the authors of this sensationalist NYTimes article. To me, it seems like they completely lack any nuanced understanding of the information flow and its vulnerabilities and are merely depending on whatever third-hand analysis they might have gleaned from reading other amateur blogs.
I agree that going to the service providers (e.g., google, yahoo, apple, phone companies, etc.) or building a backdoor into the software is a good way to go about it, but I hardly think that means that the NSA is "winning the war on encryption."
Under the current grid you can get 10% to 20% of your power from wind & solar.
That's just from the grid. If you buy solar panels (or your own windmill), it could be a LOT higher.
Economic storage is a nut that is yet to be cracked (and in my mind one of the key factors holding back the industry). That is why you need base power from nuclear, coal or hydro.
You left out natural gas and cow turd power. You have an excellent, excellent point about storage being the problem. I personally would rather subsidize research in this area rather than subsidizing a nuclear power plant for the sake of power diversity.
I would also question you on why you are paying 14% more for cow power. Is it to reduce greenhouse gasses? The debate is still going if cow power helps or not. For most people adding another 6 inches of insulation in the attic would be cheaper and has a higher impact.
I personally think there's something amazing about using a waste product to generate useful energy. You don't even have to bring greenhouse gasses into the equation to justify use of cow power. Insulation is a good suggestion (esp. in Vermont).
What? Everyone knows Al Gore is a closeted ruddy-faced queen.