There's a small distribution company that services a small part of the city. The company being set up is not going to be competing with them
So the current company has a monopoly in the area that they already service.
If they're doing a bad enough job that a competitor can come in and take their business away from them, especially when they already have existing infrastructure, they SHOULD have that business taken away from them.
I agree completely. What I don't agree with is another company that is subsidized by tax money and therefore able to offer lower prices coming into a market. If the service is the same but the price is lower who do you think a customer would choose?
In areas where the local companies are providing a satisfactory level of service, nobody's willing to allow the tax money to be spent to create a new cooperative.
I just realized we might be talking about different issues. You are talking about a cooperative that is supported by member fees and not taxed. What I have issue with is a government run system where any shortfalls can be made up by taxes. They are very different things.
I am not sure it would work on a micro level. Who in a town of 100 would have the technical expertise to handle the system. Can such a town afford the hiring a technician/customer service rep to handle the system? Can a small system like that get the technical support from the hardware suppliers to make the system stable? There are economies of scale that might render a system that small non-viable.
Does your city have existing natural gas infrastructure run by private business? If it does then any investment made in it by the private business will be rendered worthless by the city being able to undercut them and take all the customers.
If a city does the latter they should be required to buy any existing infrastructure at fare market value. The government service will become a defacto monopoly driving private business out of the area.
Why would any business invest in an area when they know that the local government can take all their customers at any time.
There is plenty of money to be made in broadband. The issue is letting government, who has lower overhead and tax money to fall back on, compete with private industry.
Perhaps that is a problem with the New Jersey regulators not doing their duty rather than a bad concept. Maybe the politicians who allowed that should be voted out of office. A good concept badly implemented is still a good concept.
Taxpayer-funded internet = bad, because competition = 0
This bad because tax money that should be allocated to public functions is used to causes losses in existing private business.
Local monopolies = good, despite competition = 0.
Local monopoly with regulatory oversight and regulatory burden and mandatory universal access is good. It requires coverage for all while preventing others from picking the high paying customers and servicing just them.
Furthermore, the state/city-subsidised public utility company is a perfectly legitimate political decision for the public sector to take.
Sure, if they are willing to buy the assets of the private companies in that business. A public business entering an existing market will just mean the existing players will be driven out and lose all their investment.
It's not like the budget for sidewalks is included as a special sales tax on shoes.
Sidewalks have always been a government task. There are no private companies who's investment in sidewalks would be rendered worthless when the city starts building them.
I'd argue Uber (and similar services) is an experiment in whether or not we actually need/want those regulations.
There was a time when there were no requirements. The taxi laws were built over the years to deal with problems. The experiment has been done and the result is the current system.
That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been.
Unless there is an exact number assigned to the metrics it is a subjective metric. There are two solutions to the issue of overwork; raise the number or hire more people. Decisions like that are made by elected officials and are not written into laws.
picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been.
That is an assumption on your part. Maybe a full analysis was done and a round number close to the optimal number was selected. Yes laws like this are arbitrary.
Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.
Sometimes it is which is called sunsetting. On the other hand why mandate when a number has to be reexamined? If inflation is low it could be quite a while before needed. Why make laws more complex than necessary?
I have no problem with public owned ISPs. The issue is with public funding backed up by taxes competing with private funding requiring profit. If the universal coverage is funded by taxes then the private company is at a major disadvantage.
That is the reason local monopolies are given. The company is the only one in the area but they must provide universal coverage within that area at set prices.
That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001.
Round numbers are easy to remember and deal with. It is the same mechanism that sets limits for severyity of theft and damage laws. For example, theft under $1000 is a different degree of severity than theft over $1000. The former is usually a misdemeanour while the latter is a felony. These numbers are arbitrary and have changes by amending the laws over the years.
How would you know whether the number is too low?
When too many transactions get reported and the investigation teams get swamped.
Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?
Because the mechanism is subjective and laws have to be objective. Any subjective changes in criminal law must be voted on by elected officials to become law.
You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
Do you have a better algorithm? It is easy to say why you think is bad but much harder to fix the "problem".
the states forbidding local governments from setting up networks to compete with the local cable/telephone company.
It depends on what you mean by compete. 1. If it means "set up a separate company that must be self sustaining and pay back any funds loaned to it by local government" then I would call that competing. 2. If it means "set up a department where any income shortfalls will be made up out of general revenue and all initial infrastructure expenditures will be paid for by local government" I would not call that competing.
How can any private company compete with a government organizations who is subsidized by taxes?
There is the rub. Sometimes you don't notice the system being gamed until too late.
What's so magical about the $10,000 number?
Laws have to be black and white. The line is arbitrary but well defined. That is how laws work. If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.
Lets not go too far into this specific case. It is just an example of how knowing an algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
You need to get a Credit Union. The credit union I deal with bends over backwards to avoid fees. For example, there have been times that my paycheck deposit has come late in the day but withdrawals have come out earlier and should have caused an overdraft fee. But because my regular pattern was to deposit my pay that day no fee was charged. That is one of the many reasons I deal with a Credit Union and not a Bank.
No selection algorithm is perfect. There will be ways to exploit aspects. By knowing all the algorithm it may be much easier to game the system and gain false advantage. For example, financial transactions over a certain dollar value, I think $10k, have to be reported. This leads to many transactions that are $9,999.00.
It includes the time, date, duration and destination number of each call, the type of network a consumer subscribes to, and any other information that appears on the consumer's telephone bill.
Sensitive information like SSN does not appear on a customer's bill.
Slashdot Mirror
The only maintenance requirement for landowners I have ever heard of is snow removal. Installation, repair, etc is a municipal duty.
There's a small distribution company that services a small part of the city. The company being set up is not going to be competing with them
So the current company has a monopoly in the area that they already service.
If they're doing a bad enough job that a competitor can come in and take their business away from them, especially when they already have existing infrastructure, they SHOULD have that business taken away from them.
I agree completely. What I don't agree with is another company that is subsidized by tax money and therefore able to offer lower prices coming into a market. If the service is the same but the price is lower who do you think a customer would choose?
In areas where the local companies are providing a satisfactory level of service, nobody's willing to allow the tax money to be spent to create a new cooperative.
I just realized we might be talking about different issues. You are talking about a cooperative that is supported by member fees and not taxed. What I have issue with is a government run system where any shortfalls can be made up by taxes. They are very different things.
doesn't want to sell for anything approaching a reasonable price
There is something called eminent domain that allows a government body to set the price.
Isn't that an infrastructure monopoly?
Which would then speed up the appeal process. A lack of decision is the same as a denial of coverage. In both cases the policy holder gets no money.
I am not sure it would work on a micro level. Who in a town of 100 would have the technical expertise to handle the system. Can such a town afford the hiring a technician/customer service rep to handle the system? Can a small system like that get the technical support from the hardware suppliers to make the system stable? There are economies of scale that might render a system that small non-viable.
Does your city have existing natural gas infrastructure run by private business? If it does then any investment made in it by the private business will be rendered worthless by the city being able to undercut them and take all the customers.
If a city does the latter they should be required to buy any existing infrastructure at fare market value. The government service will become a defacto monopoly driving private business out of the area.
Why would any business invest in an area when they know that the local government can take all their customers at any time.
Someday the number will need to be raised, so why not plan for the inevitable?
They did by allowing the law to be amended when needed and not at an arbitrary time.
It is interesting that you have a problem with an arbitrary number but not with an arbitrary amendment timeline.
There is plenty of money to be made in broadband. The issue is letting government, who has lower overhead and tax money to fall back on, compete with private industry.
Perhaps that is a problem with the New Jersey regulators not doing their duty rather than a bad concept. Maybe the politicians who allowed that should be voted out of office. A good concept badly implemented is still a good concept.
Taxpayer-funded internet = bad, because competition = 0
This bad because tax money that should be allocated to public functions is used to causes losses in existing private business.
Local monopolies = good, despite competition = 0.
Local monopoly with regulatory oversight and regulatory burden and mandatory universal access is good. It requires coverage for all while preventing others from picking the high paying customers and servicing just them.
Furthermore, the state/city-subsidised public utility company is a perfectly legitimate political decision for the public sector to take.
Sure, if they are willing to buy the assets of the private companies in that business. A public business entering an existing market will just mean the existing players will be driven out and lose all their investment.
It's not like the budget for sidewalks is included as a special sales tax on shoes.
Sidewalks have always been a government task. There are no private companies who's investment in sidewalks would be rendered worthless when the city starts building them.
First you fine the monopoly. If that does not change things they you buy the monopoly and take it over.
I'd argue Uber (and similar services) is an experiment in whether or not we actually need/want those regulations.
There was a time when there were no requirements. The taxi laws were built over the years to deal with problems. The experiment has been done and the result is the current system.
That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been.
Unless there is an exact number assigned to the metrics it is a subjective metric. There are two solutions to the issue of overwork; raise the number or hire more people. Decisions like that are made by elected officials and are not written into laws.
picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been.
That is an assumption on your part. Maybe a full analysis was done and a round number close to the optimal number was selected. Yes laws like this are arbitrary.
Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.
Sometimes it is which is called sunsetting. On the other hand why mandate when a number has to be reexamined? If inflation is low it could be quite a while before needed. Why make laws more complex than necessary?
I have no problem with public owned ISPs. The issue is with public funding backed up by taxes competing with private funding requiring profit. If the universal coverage is funded by taxes then the private company is at a major disadvantage.
That is the reason local monopolies are given. The company is the only one in the area but they must provide universal coverage within that area at set prices.
That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001.
Round numbers are easy to remember and deal with. It is the same mechanism that sets limits for severyity of theft and damage laws. For example, theft under $1000 is a different degree of severity than theft over $1000. The former is usually a misdemeanour while the latter is a felony. These numbers are arbitrary and have changes by amending the laws over the years.
How would you know whether the number is too low?
When too many transactions get reported and the investigation teams get swamped.
Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?
Because the mechanism is subjective and laws have to be objective. Any subjective changes in criminal law must be voted on by elected officials to become law.
You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
Do you have a better algorithm? It is easy to say why you think is bad but much harder to fix the "problem".
If fact it happens all the time. Government IS that bad at doing things. Their inefficiency _far_ exceeds private profit.
So what if they are inefficient. A government ISP can still price private companies out of business as they can make up shortfalls with taxes.
the states forbidding local governments from setting up networks to compete with the local cable/telephone company.
It depends on what you mean by compete.
1. If it means "set up a separate company that must be self sustaining and pay back any funds loaned to it by local government" then I would call that competing.
2. If it means "set up a department where any income shortfalls will be made up out of general revenue and all initial infrastructure expenditures will be paid for by local government" I would not call that competing.
How can any private company compete with a government organizations who is subsidized by taxes?
Most regular taxis take cash.
When you find people gaming the system
There is the rub. Sometimes you don't notice the system being gamed until too late.
What's so magical about the $10,000 number?
Laws have to be black and white. The line is arbitrary but well defined. That is how laws work. If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.
Lets not go too far into this specific case. It is just an example of how knowing an algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
The Breathalyzer issue looks like an implementation issue and not an algorithm issue.
You need to get a Credit Union. The credit union I deal with bends over backwards to avoid fees. For example, there have been times that my paycheck deposit has come late in the day but withdrawals have come out earlier and should have caused an overdraft fee. But because my regular pattern was to deposit my pay that day no fee was charged. That is one of the many reasons I deal with a Credit Union and not a Bank.
Not all structuring gets caught. It was just an example of how knowing an algorithm can modify behaviour to change the outcome.
No selection algorithm is perfect. There will be ways to exploit aspects. By knowing all the algorithm it may be much easier to game the system and gain false advantage. For example, financial transactions over a certain dollar value, I think $10k, have to be reported. This leads to many transactions that are $9,999.00.
How about you usethe link I referenced;
It includes the time, date, duration and destination number of each call, the type of network a consumer subscribes to, and any other information that appears on the consumer's telephone bill.
Sensitive information like SSN does not appear on a customer's bill.