Is the future even having an OS at all? The "browser is the OS" idea behind AJAX is gaining a LOT of strength, especially as bandwidth is increasing in leaps and bounds (I'm testing a 10mbps broadband at home right now). Maybe the end result is a return to a client-server "dumb terminal" with leased or shared processing performed on server farms.
I can't figure which direction will win out. For most applications, client-server is perfect. For specific ones (gaming), consoles may be better than PCs in the long run, especially with hardware manufacturers subsidizing the cost of the hardware in hopes of selling more licensed software.
No, you're right. I'll have to track down some of the sources (I post from my PDA phone so I don't keep access to all my research here). I'll try to look up some old articles I wrote about Standard Oil, American car companies, and various other cartels over the years and e-mail it to you later.
In my research, the only cartels that took decades to break were the ones that held real power over the elected officials. As time goes on and as citizens keep putting faith in voting, these powers will only get worse -- yet the Internet opens so many holes in the cartels that I am hoping we'll see some tumble quick before they even see the end.
I've been contemplating the OS situation for years (ever since I first tried to run a multinode BBS under DOS' DesqView) and only recently has a possible endgame become visible to me: emulation.
Software needs an OS layer, the OS layer needs an abstraction layer to hardware, and the hardware needs a communication layer to all the various mechanisms (drivers, BIOS, interface protocols, whatever). It isn't just a simple 16-bit.SYS driver like we had in the DOS days that basically handled everything.
We've seen so many emulators (Macs running Windows emulators running Mac emulators) on so many platforms, but what has allowed so many to come to the market in such a short period of time? Processor speed, I'd say.
Now that processors are incredibly fast, we're likely to see little performance increases in the tasks that 90% of the world uses PCs for: displaying text on a screen, inputting text into a form, and sending that text to a printer. Sure, Vista will incorporate a new video structure and 3D-gaming and heavy-use databases will always need faster processors, but MOST users are still just text viewers.
The next step, I believe, is creating a more realistic "standard" emulation structure for software. I think the F/OSS market is awesome because you can generally cross-compile a lot of code on various operating systems, but they still need modifications to the specifics of the OS or the hardware you're running on. What I really think will be the next big thing will be a TRUE hardware abstraction layer in the OSes (H.A.L.I.T.O.S.es?). Is it possible? I'm not sure, but it makes me wonder.
Why do people bust their asses constantly updating WINE when the OSS community can work towards a more amazing result: a standardized implementation structure that lets you write software once, and have it run on any OS that has a HAL to translate that implementation structure to what the hardware requires.
I know -- that's what the OS is supposed to do, but it fails. Yet do MOST applications really need the extreme features we have in customization (different video cards, hard drive controllers, network interfaces, etc)? Or would MOST applications run just fine (on high end processors) if they can say "Write pixel at X,Y" or "send data chunk to IP address" or "Write this data to this store" etc?
Maybe I'm talking out of my ass (I haven't programmed anything significant since MajorBBS mods in C over 15 years ago), but it seems like that is where software has to head. A completely transparent "mini-OS" that offers all software written for it a very standard set of instructions for the most popular functions. You're not going to write 3D games in it, but that's not the target market. 3D games will always push the envelope and come BEFORE the hardware can handle it. We're talking about basic implementation of basic software, yet it is this basic software that we waste billions of man-hours of labor on trying to get working on various OSes and hardware combos.
Now that I think about it, wasn't NT supposed to be the magic system? What exactly happened there? (Don't just say "Microsoft.")
Yet this is a monopoly granted by license to borrow government's monopoly on force and coercion. The RIAA recording cartel wouldn't be a monopoly if they didn't know who to take care of first -- your representatives.
Yet in my research, farmers do pretty well (we have 5 independent farmers within a 15 minute d ive who net over $1M/year and they're not megacorps but family run). I've been to Asia and many "sweat shop" workers live better lives than all their neighbors combined. The Chinese poor workers save up to 60% of their earnings yet we want them to earn more?
Capitalism creates wealth, but the RIAA recording cartel is NOT capitalism. They are mercantilists -- companies using the monopoly of force of government against their competitors. Capitalism helps the poor and the buying minorities, mercantilism supports the elite.
Let me start by saying that I hate "market" democracies. DJ radio is the worst form of democracy as it tries to create one group of listeners without thinking about the many subgroups.
MySpace does a MUCH better job. You can see what your friends are listening to, and try it yourself. Rather than buy an album that's nationally loved by 2 dozen promoters, you can buy an album that 2 dozen of your friends love and you're more likely to actually like it.
Mass marketing will be replaced by viral mini-markets. A talented local band can do very w ll in th ir local 2-3 state area.
I'd rather see 500 local bands make $100,000 a year than 5 bands making $10M. $100,000 a year is great money for a part time, easily doable if copyright was gone. 6 shows a year to 500 fans (10% of your fan base) and 5000 albums sold.
Yet radio and mass broadcast marketing (protected by coercive copyright) was our only option due to the radio cartels. Podcasts and MySpace are finally taking own the national promotion scene.
You're probably correct from a 1980 perspective but not from a 2010 one.
How many payola scandals happened over 50 years? 3 or 4? The recording cartel and the radio cartel only grew stronger. I'm firm in my belief that a rotten media cartel is to blame.
Where did all these colluding mercantilists get their power to rob from? The U.S. government, of course. We can't turn back the clock, but it looks like we won't have to.
Every media company is in shambles. Last week's Black indictment is just the beginning as investors audit failing media companies. Congress' powerful arm is dying and the next generation won't even remember it.
That is the light at the end of the tunnel. Our parents didn't know of the recording industry cartel, but supported them financially. Our kids won't know about it because the Internet was the breaking of the levee holding back our rights. Copyright is dying, new methods to earn money will appear.
When I call for the end of copyright, people say that creation would die if the artist couldn't protect their income. How much do artists today get from the cartels? Nearly 0. Thanks to copyright and those who "own" that right.
I've seen 2 local bands forgo major label representation because of BAD contracts. Yet most big bands do sign bad deals.
I see a big reason for "major" labels, actually. I look at it as a co-op of bands that distribute the cost of production and marketing across hundreds of "talented" bands.
My problem is with the anti-freedom maneuvers of the labels. They corrupted radio rights, they helped destroy copyright, they subsidized the DMCA and they fostered anti-speech creations like Tipper's parental warning label and other bad ideas. I have no problem with stupid business tactics, it is when the law protects it that I'll call foul.
Sherman would be correct -- in a free market. Fortunately for us, those who rely on helping create freedom-reducing laws eventually find themselves violating their own creations.
The real dilemma for content creators was their inability to collude together on a newer standard to replace CD, and now it is too late. Wouldn't you be mad if your cartel couldn't react in time to new situations?
The simple fact that any audible signal can be recorded is important, yet the record companies still seem blind that they have a viable MP3 market because most consumers (with jobs) would rather pay $1 (with Jobs) than spend 20 minutes finding a song illegally or even bothering to rip their own CDs. I have more than a few friends who've rebought albums from iTunes that they own on CD. $10, to them, is worth the time.
Does the RIAA need to continue the "piracy is wrong" campaign? Yes! But that should be the limit. Let honest people know they're not reimbursing others for the content they pirate, and I believe you'll see people continue to pay. I believe people are generally good and moral (99% of the time even a thief acts in a good way).
Do record labels need copy protection and lawsuits? Not against consumers, not even the guy seeding a torrent to hundreds of others. They need to re-evaluate their market and see that people will pay and more people are becoming more technologically inclined so even at a lower price they can see bigger profits.
Nonetheless I don't think we need to worry about the RIAA or rootkits or whatever much longer. The new generation (10-16) of kids recording today are already using the next distribution system (PureVolume and MySpace). I know of a few young bands already making decent money selling very professional CDs by promoting their music online for free.
I'm starting to filter the RIAA news (at least mentally) since it isn't news to me. They had a great run of 70 years, and just like gaslamp lighters, their time has come.
The freedom of speech is a natural right; you are born with it. The Bill of Rights says that Congress has no power to abridge this natural right.
You are free to speak as you please on your pwn land and on government land. Your ability to speak on the property of others may be restricted, if the owners prefer. You can always leave their land.
Amazon.com is private property. They are free to moderate the reviews. For market superiority, they prefer not to.
I don't believe in the criminality of slander, libel or defamation. I believe in the complete freedom of speech. "No law" means no law.
The Blu Ray video format specifies the maximum read capability of 36 megabits/second. The encoding codec used will allow content creators to compress nearly any resolution as long as it won't surpass 36 megabits/second.
I'm guessing we'll see 1080i as that is compatible with almost every HD TV out there. The format just specifies what video formats to use, it won't force anyone to stick to those resolutions.
1080p/24 can be taken from 1080i/60 if the 1080i is originally sourced from 1080p 24frame material. The decoding processing is a lot more intensive than regular SD processing, but it is available.
I saw 1080p once maybe 2 years ago on a Sony CRT front projector (the thing had bicycle handlebars to lift its 250 lb weight) and I was blown away by the clarity. The $100,000 theater was the most intense system I'd ever seen or felt.
Now that 1080i material is hitting us, I'll be the first to try 1080p conversion, but I don't have the ability to display it huge, yet. Even so, the technology will be below $5000 any day now, and I can't wait to see it!
Notice how you posted this at 10:03PM (CST) on a Friday:)
I have an excuse, the lady and I are both coughing up phlegm and virii, heh.
You're right though, geeks are still uncool and unchic. Maybe companies are trying to sell geeks as chic in order to get more geeks interested in their products?
As an ex-club owner, I can most definitely tell you that my standard door policy was to never let in people like me. Sell out? Maybe. But you don't pay $15k a month in rent on standards...
The article author has some decent insight but I think someone her is very wrong. If it's the author has the wrong idea, end of story. If the author is right then the labels are in trouble.
The value of music is quickly heading to the zero-cost-minimum. In the "old" days, you had 3 costs to overcome: headhunting, recording and marketing.
Headhunting was finding marketable artists to fit into whatever pop sound the labels had planned.
Recording was expensive in million dollar studios with mega-engineers.
Marketing was partially advertising, partially payola and partially touring costs.
Headhunting today is made easier with PureVolume and even MySpace (they even just released their own soundtrack this week). Recording is cheap. Marketing?
Old radio is dead. Stations can't get listeners (and advertisers) playing one music style. Everyone is changing to a mix of new and old pop along with indie. 40,000 fan concerts have become 20x 2,000 fan shows on the same weekend. Even megastars from 2 years ago are failing to draw a crowd (Gavin Rossdale of Bush drew only 40 people in Milwaukee two weeks ago).
The labels have to quickly grasp the reality of the free market. People will pay for safety, speed and quality. $1 is fair, $2 is pushing it. I'd think $2 per popular song single is fine but offering 4+ songs from an album for $4+ makes more sense.
At a certain price, a fan will see the value of safety and quality (versus thepiratebay) diminish quickly. My household spends $10,000 per year for music, but lately it is mostly shows. Our church mostly dumped our band and now invites various Christian rock bands to play (many of them are actually amazing). The market is completely crazy, and as Faith + 1 fans know, religious rock has always been a money maker, and even those bands are MP3-driven.
Demand is balanced by supply, quality and price. Download supplies are infinite. How do you remove supply from the equation? Increase quality. Increase features. Give buyers discounts to shows. Give buyers dibs on concert tickets. Give Buyers dibs on real band interviews.
Re:It's not a government granted monopoly!
on
Requiem for Usenet
·
· Score: 1
Running cable within a given city area isn't as cost prohibitive as you'd think, unless Rogers is priced so competitively that no one sees the reward for the risk. If that's true, it means you are paying a fair price.
In my home town in the US (40,000 people) we have 3 wired broadband suppliers (cable, telco DSL, private DSL) and 3 WiFi broadband suppliers. Why can a small town of 40,000 have 6 broadband suppliers and Canada has 1?
It isn't cost of entry. 10,000 houses can be wired for around US$1.8M (I used to own a Communications Contracting business until last year). 10,000 subscribers at US$50/month means you'd pay back your investment in 5-6 months, 10 tops.
50,000 houses should be around US$7.2M, paid off in 4-5 months, 8 tops.
Raising $10M for an ISP is fairly easy. 20 people with good credit could incorporate and do it. 2000 people in a town could co-op at $5000 each and make killer money selling co-op shares for $200 per share.
You vote? You accepted the monopoly granted by the only one capable of creating a months -- government.
Stop voting, start "harassing" wholly is elected by your neighbors. I love to ask "my" representatives questions all the time. The more non-voters can waste the time of the elected, the more our voice against coercion can be heard.
ISP serviced Usenet is a waste of money (as is, IMO, ISP serviced web hosting). Just because they're not lowering their prices doesn't mean the user is losing out.
Usenet requires tons of bandwidth and storage, and serving it needs decent server hardware. I'm not sure anyone I know still uses it.
What will the ISP do with thr money saved? Because of competition, they'll spend it on service quality improvements for services their customers do use. If they pocketed it, they'd lose business.
Being an ISP today means giving the user the most bandwidth, the least downtime and the cheapest cost. Value added services such as e-mail accounts, web home, Usenet and even security utilities is better served by third parties.
Competition in pricing requires some minority features to go bu-bye.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the future even having an OS at all? The "browser is the OS" idea behind AJAX is gaining a LOT of strength, especially as bandwidth is increasing in leaps and bounds (I'm testing a 10mbps broadband at home right now). Maybe the end result is a return to a client-server "dumb terminal" with leased or shared processing performed on server farms.
I can't figure which direction will win out. For most applications, client-server is perfect. For specific ones (gaming), consoles may be better than PCs in the long run, especially with hardware manufacturers subsidizing the cost of the hardware in hopes of selling more licensed software.
No, you're right. I'll have to track down some of the sources (I post from my PDA phone so I don't keep access to all my research here). I'll try to look up some old articles I wrote about Standard Oil, American car companies, and various other cartels over the years and e-mail it to you later.
In my research, the only cartels that took decades to break were the ones that held real power over the elected officials. As time goes on and as citizens keep putting faith in voting, these powers will only get worse -- yet the Internet opens so many holes in the cartels that I am hoping we'll see some tumble quick before they even see the end.
I've been contemplating the OS situation for years (ever since I first tried to run a multinode BBS under DOS' DesqView) and only recently has a possible endgame become visible to me: emulation.
.SYS driver like we had in the DOS days that basically handled everything.
Software needs an OS layer, the OS layer needs an abstraction layer to hardware, and the hardware needs a communication layer to all the various mechanisms (drivers, BIOS, interface protocols, whatever). It isn't just a simple 16-bit
We've seen so many emulators (Macs running Windows emulators running Mac emulators) on so many platforms, but what has allowed so many to come to the market in such a short period of time? Processor speed, I'd say.
Now that processors are incredibly fast, we're likely to see little performance increases in the tasks that 90% of the world uses PCs for: displaying text on a screen, inputting text into a form, and sending that text to a printer. Sure, Vista will incorporate a new video structure and 3D-gaming and heavy-use databases will always need faster processors, but MOST users are still just text viewers.
The next step, I believe, is creating a more realistic "standard" emulation structure for software. I think the F/OSS market is awesome because you can generally cross-compile a lot of code on various operating systems, but they still need modifications to the specifics of the OS or the hardware you're running on. What I really think will be the next big thing will be a TRUE hardware abstraction layer in the OSes (H.A.L.I.T.O.S.es?). Is it possible? I'm not sure, but it makes me wonder.
Why do people bust their asses constantly updating WINE when the OSS community can work towards a more amazing result: a standardized implementation structure that lets you write software once, and have it run on any OS that has a HAL to translate that implementation structure to what the hardware requires.
I know -- that's what the OS is supposed to do, but it fails. Yet do MOST applications really need the extreme features we have in customization (different video cards, hard drive controllers, network interfaces, etc)? Or would MOST applications run just fine (on high end processors) if they can say "Write pixel at X,Y" or "send data chunk to IP address" or "Write this data to this store" etc?
Maybe I'm talking out of my ass (I haven't programmed anything significant since MajorBBS mods in C over 15 years ago), but it seems like that is where software has to head. A completely transparent "mini-OS" that offers all software written for it a very standard set of instructions for the most popular functions. You're not going to write 3D games in it, but that's not the target market. 3D games will always push the envelope and come BEFORE the hardware can handle it. We're talking about basic implementation of basic software, yet it is this basic software that we waste billions of man-hours of labor on trying to get working on various OSes and hardware combos.
Now that I think about it, wasn't NT supposed to be the magic system? What exactly happened there? (Don't just say "Microsoft.")
Yet this is a monopoly granted by license to borrow government's monopoly on force and coercion. The RIAA recording cartel wouldn't be a monopoly if they didn't know who to take care of first -- your representatives.
Yet in my research, farmers do pretty well (we have 5 independent farmers within a 15 minute d ive who net over $1M/year and they're not megacorps but family run). I've been to Asia and many "sweat shop" workers live better lives than all their neighbors combined. The Chinese poor workers save up to 60% of their earnings yet we want them to earn more?
Capitalism creates wealth, but the RIAA recording cartel is NOT capitalism. They are mercantilists -- companies using the monopoly of force of government against their competitors. Capitalism helps the poor and the buying minorities, mercantilism supports the elite.
Let me start by saying that I hate "market" democracies. DJ radio is the worst form of democracy as it tries to create one group of listeners without thinking about the many subgroups.
MySpace does a MUCH better job. You can see what your friends are listening to, and try it yourself. Rather than buy an album that's nationally loved by 2 dozen promoters, you can buy an album that 2 dozen of your friends love and you're more likely to actually like it.
Mass marketing will be replaced by viral mini-markets. A talented local band can do very w ll in th ir local 2-3 state area.
I'd rather see 500 local bands make $100,000 a year than 5 bands making $10M. $100,000 a year is great money for a part time, easily doable if copyright was gone. 6 shows a year to 500 fans (10% of your fan base) and 5000 albums sold.
Yet radio and mass broadcast marketing (protected by coercive copyright) was our only option due to the radio cartels. Podcasts and MySpace are finally taking own the national promotion scene.
You're probably correct from a 1980 perspective but not from a 2010 one.
How many payola scandals happened over 50 years? 3 or 4? The recording cartel and the radio cartel only grew stronger. I'm firm in my belief that a rotten media cartel is to blame.
Where did all these colluding mercantilists get their power to rob from? The U.S. government, of course. We can't turn back the clock, but it looks like we won't have to.
Every media company is in shambles. Last week's Black indictment is just the beginning as investors audit failing media companies. Congress' powerful arm is dying and the next generation won't even remember it.
That is the light at the end of the tunnel. Our parents didn't know of the recording industry cartel, but supported them financially. Our kids won't know about it because the Internet was the breaking of the levee holding back our rights. Copyright is dying, new methods to earn money will appear.
When I call for the end of copyright, people say that creation would die if the artist couldn't protect their income. How much do artists today get from the cartels? Nearly 0. Thanks to copyright and those who "own" that right.
I've seen 2 local bands forgo major label representation because of BAD contracts. Yet most big bands do sign bad deals.
I see a big reason for "major" labels, actually. I look at it as a co-op of bands that distribute the cost of production and marketing across hundreds of "talented" bands.
My problem is with the anti-freedom maneuvers of the labels. They corrupted radio rights, they helped destroy copyright, they subsidized the DMCA and they fostered anti-speech creations like Tipper's parental warning label and other bad ideas. I have no problem with stupid business tactics, it is when the law protects it that I'll call foul.
Sherman would be correct -- in a free market. Fortunately for us, those who rely on helping create freedom-reducing laws eventually find themselves violating their own creations.
The real dilemma for content creators was their inability to collude together on a newer standard to replace CD, and now it is too late. Wouldn't you be mad if your cartel couldn't react in time to new situations?
The simple fact that any audible signal can be recorded is important, yet the record companies still seem blind that they have a viable MP3 market because most consumers (with jobs) would rather pay $1 (with Jobs) than spend 20 minutes finding a song illegally or even bothering to rip their own CDs. I have more than a few friends who've rebought albums from iTunes that they own on CD. $10, to them, is worth the time.
Does the RIAA need to continue the "piracy is wrong" campaign? Yes! But that should be the limit. Let honest people know they're not reimbursing others for the content they pirate, and I believe you'll see people continue to pay. I believe people are generally good and moral (99% of the time even a thief acts in a good way).
Do record labels need copy protection and lawsuits? Not against consumers, not even the guy seeding a torrent to hundreds of others. They need to re-evaluate their market and see that people will pay and more people are becoming more technologically inclined so even at a lower price they can see bigger profits.
Nonetheless I don't think we need to worry about the RIAA or rootkits or whatever much longer. The new generation (10-16) of kids recording today are already using the next distribution system (PureVolume and MySpace). I know of a few young bands already making decent money selling very professional CDs by promoting their music online for free.
I'm starting to filter the RIAA news (at least mentally) since it isn't news to me. They had a great run of 70 years, and just like gaslamp lighters, their time has come.
RIP A CD, R.I.P. R.I.A.A.
GED: EGB formulated my mind as a late teen and caused me to not go to college.
Hofstadter replied to his university e-mails in hours even 14 years ago. Great book. Motion IS inherently impossible!
I hope you are kidding.
The freedom of speech is a natural right; you are born with it. The Bill of Rights says that Congress has no power to abridge this natural right.
You are free to speak as you please on your pwn land and on government land. Your ability to speak on the property of others may be restricted, if the owners prefer. You can always leave their land.
Amazon.com is private property. They are free to moderate the reviews. For market superiority, they prefer not to.
I don't believe in the criminality of slander, libel or defamation. I believe in the complete freedom of speech. "No law" means no law.
Looking for a job in the 5 figures?
The last 12 grads I interviewed were all top ranked grads from "great" universities. In terms of business sense, they were morons.
One even thought he was smarter than I was, and said so. $100K in debt, 5 years lost?
I've seen what my younger brother and older cousin got from college: unemployment and bad attitudes.
The Blu Ray video format specifies the maximum read capability of 36 megabits/second. The encoding codec used will allow content creators to compress nearly any resolution as long as it won't surpass 36 megabits/second.
I'm guessing we'll see 1080i as that is compatible with almost every HD TV out there. The format just specifies what video formats to use, it won't force anyone to stick to those resolutions.
1080p/24 can be taken from 1080i/60 if the 1080i is originally sourced from 1080p 24frame material. The decoding processing is a lot more intensive than regular SD processing, but it is available.
I saw 1080p once maybe 2 years ago on a Sony CRT front projector (the thing had bicycle handlebars to lift its 250 lb weight) and I was blown away by the clarity. The $100,000 theater was the most intense system I'd ever seen or felt.
Now that 1080i material is hitting us, I'll be the first to try 1080p conversion, but I don't have the ability to display it huge, yet. Even so, the technology will be below $5000 any day now, and I can't wait to see it!
I wonder how long it took for Sony to transcode the AVI torrent they downloaded off of The Pirate Bay into the format needed for a BD-ROM.
Had I known they were releasing this awesome movie in Hi-Def format, I'd probably have just skipped the download and just let them do the work.
Make sure you go and copy all the +5 comments into this thread, get your Karma up to 'Excellent'
Notice how you posted this at 10:03PM (CST) on a Friday :)
I have an excuse, the lady and I are both coughing up phlegm and virii, heh.
You're right though, geeks are still uncool and unchic. Maybe companies are trying to sell geeks as chic in order to get more geeks interested in their products?
As an ex-club owner, I can most definitely tell you that my standard door policy was to never let in people like me. Sell out? Maybe. But you don't pay $15k a month in rent on standards...
The club (The Rave) booted the band to a tiny bar stage instead of the main stage. I was shocked myself (I didn't go, not a fan).
The article author has some decent insight but I think someone her is very wrong. If it's the author has the wrong idea, end of story. If the author is right then the labels are in trouble.
The value of music is quickly heading to the zero-cost-minimum. In the "old" days, you had 3 costs to overcome: headhunting, recording and marketing.
Headhunting was finding marketable artists to fit into whatever pop sound the labels had planned.
Recording was expensive in million dollar studios with mega-engineers.
Marketing was partially advertising, partially payola and partially touring costs.
Headhunting today is made easier with PureVolume and even MySpace (they even just released their own soundtrack this week). Recording is cheap. Marketing?
Old radio is dead. Stations can't get listeners (and advertisers) playing one music style. Everyone is changing to a mix of new and old pop along with indie. 40,000 fan concerts have become 20x 2,000 fan shows on the same weekend. Even megastars from 2 years ago are failing to draw a crowd (Gavin Rossdale of Bush drew only 40 people in Milwaukee two weeks ago).
The labels have to quickly grasp the reality of the free market. People will pay for safety, speed and quality. $1 is fair, $2 is pushing it. I'd think $2 per popular song single is fine but offering 4+ songs from an album for $4+ makes more sense.
At a certain price, a fan will see the value of safety and quality (versus thepiratebay) diminish quickly. My household spends $10,000 per year for music, but lately it is mostly shows. Our church mostly dumped our band and now invites various Christian rock bands to play (many of them are actually amazing). The market is completely crazy, and as Faith + 1 fans know, religious rock has always been a money maker, and even those bands are MP3-driven.
Demand is balanced by supply, quality and price. Download supplies are infinite. How do you remove supply from the equation? Increase quality. Increase features. Give buyers discounts to shows. Give buyers dibs on concert tickets. Give Buyers dibs on real band interviews.
Don't raise the price.
(white) Trash In, (tv) Trash Out
Jerry Springer and the dating shows 5th Wheel and Blind Date
That'll be worthwhile... They could probably offer only one episode of those shows and no one could tell.
Anyone think they want it to fail so they could lobby Congress to DRM all TCP/IP transmissions?
Shower^2 + Shave + BrushTeethx32 + Get(Own(Apartment)) + not(sqr(Clothing)) = Women
Running cable within a given city area isn't as cost prohibitive as you'd think, unless Rogers is priced so competitively that no one sees the reward for the risk. If that's true, it means you are paying a fair price.
In my home town in the US (40,000 people) we have 3 wired broadband suppliers (cable, telco DSL, private DSL) and 3 WiFi broadband suppliers. Why can a small town of 40,000 have 6 broadband suppliers and Canada has 1?
It isn't cost of entry. 10,000 houses can be wired for around US$1.8M (I used to own a Communications Contracting business until last year). 10,000 subscribers at US$50/month means you'd pay back your investment in 5-6 months, 10 tops.
50,000 houses should be around US$7.2M, paid off in 4-5 months, 8 tops.
Raising $10M for an ISP is fairly easy. 20 people with good credit could incorporate and do it. 2000 people in a town could co-op at $5000 each and make killer money selling co-op shares for $200 per share.
It isn't financial, it's legal.
That's your fault, directly so.
You vote? You accepted the monopoly granted by the only one capable of creating a months -- government.
Stop voting, start "harassing" wholly is elected by your neighbors. I love to ask "my" representatives questions all the time. The more non-voters can waste the time of the elected, the more our voice against coercion can be heard.
ISP serviced Usenet is a waste of money (as is, IMO, ISP serviced web hosting). Just because they're not lowering their prices doesn't mean the user is losing out.
Usenet requires tons of bandwidth and storage, and serving it needs decent server hardware. I'm not sure anyone I know still uses it.
What will the ISP do with thr money saved? Because of competition, they'll spend it on service quality improvements for services their customers do use. If they pocketed it, they'd lose business.
Being an ISP today means giving the user the most bandwidth, the least downtime and the cheapest cost. Value added services such as e-mail accounts, web home, Usenet and even security utilities is better served by third parties.
Competition in pricing requires some minority features to go bu-bye.