The only other thing that bugged me was the inclusion of two appendixes with HTML and CSS reference information in them. The references are annotated very well with practical considerations, so I'm only going to knock off half a point from what would otherwise have been a perfect ten.
Wait, why is including reference material a negative? Isn't that an advantage to the user, all relevant information collected in one place?
Comcast is the monopoly where I live (Tallahassee, FL), and all that means is that they can afford to do rediculous things like charge an extra $15 for naked cable (more than just getting bare bones local channels + high speed), having crappy service, and inflated prices.
Did you miss the part where I said that "Allowing the monopoly screws over those people who already can get cable internet"?
Your situation is precisely my point. The monopoly screws you. But if there was a new suburb, that didn't have cable, the cable company has an incentive to lay down cable lines so that they can proceed to screw the new people.
However, if the lines could be shared, the cable company would go "Why spend X million dollars to lay down the cable lines, when some punk outfit will just jump in and undercut us using our own wires? Why not just wait for another outfit to put in the wires, and then jump in and undercut them on price?" And the net result is that no new wires will get put down.
The FCC is basically offering the cable companies a de facto monopoly on cable internet in order to ensure that more people can get connected and the size of the network is increased. After all, if the cable company has a monopoly, the only way it can really grow is to hook up more people.
But if, on the other hand, other companies are permitted to use the network, the cable companies may feel that expanding their network is not worth the cost, thus preventing people from ever getting high-speed internet.
Personally, I think it's a relatively hard decision to make. Allowing the monopoly screws over those people who already can get cable internet, but offers the greatest incentive to extend access to more people. Not allowing the monopoly gives cheaper prices to those with cable internet, but pretty much ensures that the networks won't get expanded, especially to more rural areas.
Perhaps a compromise of a limited-time monopoly would be best. Cable companies get a 5-year monopoly on new networks, and afterwards must open them up to competition.
I don't think Tenet is talking about individual users accessing the Internet, but more about companies and organizations. And I think that he has a point.
For example, the power companies could exchange information about the power grid across the Internet, thus coordinating how power is produced and distributed. But this would leave them vulnerable to an attack.
Another similar case could be the Stock Exchange. Sure you could use the Internet as the medium for exchanging trading orders, but should you? Increased connectivity (you could connect from anywhere) vs. decreased security.
Fair enough, but I believe the company only fined you for continued speeding (something like +30 mph for 2 minutes straight).
While it is possible to have a legitimate reason for this, it is very unlikely and would probably involve police or some authority that could vouch for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The only other thing that bugged me was the inclusion of two appendixes with HTML and CSS reference information in them. The references are annotated very well with practical considerations, so I'm only going to knock off half a point from what would otherwise have been a perfect ten.
Wait, why is including reference material a negative? Isn't that an advantage to the user, all relevant information collected in one place?
Comcast is the monopoly where I live (Tallahassee, FL), and all that means is that they can afford to do rediculous things like charge an extra $15 for naked cable (more than just getting bare bones local channels + high speed), having crappy service, and inflated prices.
Did you miss the part where I said that "Allowing the monopoly screws over those people who already can get cable internet"?
Your situation is precisely my point. The monopoly screws you. But if there was a new suburb, that didn't have cable, the cable company has an incentive to lay down cable lines so that they can proceed to screw the new people.
However, if the lines could be shared, the cable company would go "Why spend X million dollars to lay down the cable lines, when some punk outfit will just jump in and undercut us using our own wires? Why not just wait for another outfit to put in the wires, and then jump in and undercut them on price?" And the net result is that no new wires will get put down.
That's why it's a trade-off.
The FCC is basically offering the cable companies a de facto monopoly on cable internet in order to ensure that more people can get connected and the size of the network is increased. After all, if the cable company has a monopoly, the only way it can really grow is to hook up more people.
But if, on the other hand, other companies are permitted to use the network, the cable companies may feel that expanding their network is not worth the cost, thus preventing people from ever getting high-speed internet.
Personally, I think it's a relatively hard decision to make. Allowing the monopoly screws over those people who already can get cable internet, but offers the greatest incentive to extend access to more people. Not allowing the monopoly gives cheaper prices to those with cable internet, but pretty much ensures that the networks won't get expanded, especially to more rural areas.
Perhaps a compromise of a limited-time monopoly would be best. Cable companies get a 5-year monopoly on new networks, and afterwards must open them up to competition.
I don't think Tenet is talking about individual users accessing the Internet, but more about companies and organizations. And I think that he has a point.
For example, the power companies could exchange information about the power grid across the Internet, thus coordinating how power is produced and distributed. But this would leave them vulnerable to an attack.
Another similar case could be the Stock Exchange. Sure you could use the Internet as the medium for exchanging trading orders, but should you? Increased connectivity (you could connect from anywhere) vs. decreased security.
Fair enough, but I believe the company only fined you for continued speeding (something like +30 mph for 2 minutes straight). While it is possible to have a legitimate reason for this, it is very unlikely and would probably involve police or some authority that could vouch for you.