If the server your two gamers are playing on is halfway between them, the distance drops to 12,000 miles round-trip. Giving each player a ping time of ~75ms, or about what I'm stuck at on most Battlefield 1942 servers as it is. Of course, the wiring and routing aren't that good, or I wouldn't be stuck at 75ms talking to the west coast from the midwest. And the server won't always be dead-center, so somebody will have to suck it up and deal with the lousy ping.
But still, there is the *potential* for gamers to be able to play the other side of the world, even without drilling a hole through its chewy center to get the distance down to 8000 miles.
And it's a BIG market. This had never occured to me before your post, but gamers clamoring for lower pings may beat the space program to solving that pesky lightspeed problem!
Out-of-print stuff is sometimes on amazon
on
An IMDb for Books
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I have found several out-of-print books and software that is no longer available (old Lucasarts games, etc...) in their database, not available for sale.
That said, I still think a non-retailer database is a fantastic idea. It would be nice if the database itself was freely available, so that we don't have a repeat of the CDDB fiasco. ("It's free! Wait, no it's not!")
That's silly. It's not a circular argument-- they don't take off because they weigh a lot, not because they lack smooth undersides. Go to a Honda dealership and test drive an Insight. Take it up to its maximum speed, and do it on a hill just for some added kick. You will not take off.
Consumer cars, even ones with all-aluminum bodies and reduced weight engines and components like the Insight are too heavy to leave the road.
I'm sorry I wasn't more explicit. Consumer cars don't have to worry about lifting off because the lift-to-weight ratio in a normal car is not high enough to matter. Race cars do not have 5 seats and a large trunk with a spare tire and a jack, or a stereo, AC, heater, headlights, interior wood trim, cushy suspension, 8 glass windows, or a heavy steel frame and body. It's not just because the bottom's rough that cars don't fly into the air all the time. It's because they're heavy and not travelling at 230mph.
Now, you are correct about doing it for added traction. People who take their cars out to drag race are interested in having *additional* downforce, since your force of friction is directly proportional to the downforce, and your engine is so big that drag means nothing to you. But still, nobody except crazy high-end cars is actually worried about leaving the road.
Korea is farther along a path similar to Japan's than China is. The transition from making cheap knockoffs to making quality products happens over time, as money from selling the cheap stuff gradually raises the standard of living and the salaries of the people designing and building the stuff.
Korea is just now at the point (there was a big Newsweek article about Samsung that I can't find on the web) where companies like Samsung are openly changing strategy from "undercutting price" to "winning sales on quality and features".
China is undergoing a similar transition, but is not as far along. Chinese electronics are finally starting to appear on shelves, but Apex TVs and the like are still definitely the low-end of things, and are selling on price (or DRM-unfriendly quasi-legal features). When their labor costs become too high to sell on price alone anymore, they too will make a strategy switch like the Japanese did.
It would seem that a rough underside is desirable *if* you have a downforce problem. This is not something your average commuter is worried about-- nobody lifts off, even at 80mph, on their way to work.
However, a smooth underside would seem to be beneficial for air resistance and thus to fuel economy. Honda's engineers and fluid dynamicists and whatnot agree, as their most efficient car (the Honda Insight) has a smooth underside to reduce drag.
In particular, note where the article states "Another important aerodynamic detail that greatly contributes to the Insight body's low coefficient of drag is the careful management of underbody airflow." And the numbers they quote for power required to push the car through the air are equally revealing-- "In comparison, the Honda Civic Hatchback, with roughly the same 1.9 square-meter frontal area as the Insight, has a Cd of 0.36, and needs around 32 percent more power to operate at the same speed as the Insight. "
So there you have it. Without the smooth underside, rear-wheel covers, and a tapered back-end-- you need 32% more power to push a car with roughly the same frontal area. I'm not sure I'd say "A rough undersurface of the car is actually desirable" without qualifying it by adding "for a race car, but not for a normal automobile."
I've posted this before, but this time gets a disclaimer. This one isn't quite a dupe, since we got a new link. New article, new take on the subject, blahblahblah. But I make my offer anyway:
For a reasonable fee per story, I am offering my services to the editors of/. as a proofreader and duplicate checker. Additionally, I will assist if necessary (at a negotiable hourly rate) in adding code to automatically send the draft article blurbs to my wireless device. I am unable to proofread overnight (I have to sleep sometime), so that will have to be covered by another shift, or written off as "happy slashdot error time."
I cannot guarantee 100% error correction, but I will stake my job on significantly decreased rates of grammar and spelling mistakes, and far fewer duplicate postings.
I would also like a T-shirt that says "I work for slashdot".
Please, for the sake of your readers, hire me. I want to help!
This offer will be repeated (as is fitting) with each dupe.
I should clarify what caused the fire. An LED is essentially just a short circuit, but only when it is hooked up in the right direction. Had I reversed that connector, the thing just wouldn't have turned on.
LEDs don't need much power, so the wires were tiny. But by connecting them to wear the switch should go, they were hooked straight to the power supply! The tiny wires heated up just like an electric stove under the full force of the 250W power supply.
I was building a desktop on the cheap when I was still in college-- so keep in mind while reading this that the whole system was made from the lowest-quality and most inexpensive components i could find. I'd built probably a half-dozen before, and serviced more than a few other peoples' machines. Which, of course, means I got lazy and overconfident-- and accidentally connected the "Power" LED line to what should have been the power switch connector on the motherboard. Manged to get the polarity right, and everything. Finished putting it together, and plugged it in.
It came on instantly, but as this was before "soft" power switches were everywhere, I just figured the pushbutton switch was already in the ON position. After watching the POST and seeing everything okay, I started to walk away-- and then the room filled with smoke. Fast. Those little case fans are wicked efficient for that, apparently. So I dove for the plug, and pulled it out.
I opened the case back up, and the inside of the PC was blackened with soot, and the tiny LED wires were still glowing-- their insulation burned clean off. Clipped the wires off and taped the ends, plugged the switch line in instead, and everything just worked. And continued to do so until today, 6 years later.
Took forever to get that damned burnt-plastic smell out of my room, though!
It's not the music that's an issue-- how often do you upload all 20GB? It's using the device as a portable HDD that gets killed by USB1.1.
USB2.0 is backwards compatible with USB1.1, and would have been a perfect choice. Creative's Zen ipod clone uses Firewire AND USB1.1. Either solution would have covered speed and wide compatibility.
I really like their modular design, the built-in FM, and the ability to ID songs from the radio by audio fingerprint. But USB 1.1?! I will wait for USB 2.0, or Firewire+USB1.1. (gotta have that compatibility with old stuff as well as the speed!!)
It has a *very* limited range. Like you, and maybe the car next to you, if you both have your windows open and the other driver has a good antenna. Hell of a lot cleaner than a tape adapter, and easier than pulling your stereo out to add an RF modulator so that you can plug the thing directly in.
The 128MB Neuros player can be upgraded via a backpack to be exactly the same as the 20GB unit. Total price for the 128MB player and the 20GB backpack is only $430, just $30 more than the 20GB unit. The 20GB version is much larger and heavier, and cannot be "downgraded" to be the same as the 128MB unit. By going with the 128MB unit and a backpack, you can have a small, light, solid-state player for the gym (or whatever) and a 20GB backpack to hold all of your music, too. With the 20GB backpack on, it is *identical* to the 20GB unit. The 128MB piece is not available as a backpack, though.
If you jog with it, this is definitely the route to go. Tiny player for jogging, plug in the backpack for huge capacity.
Fairly expensive. But I do like the built-in FM transmitter. Also, I would recommend buying the 128MB unit, as the 20GB HDD will be available as a "backpack" that makes the 128 exactly the same (size, shape, capacity) as the 20GB unit. However, the 20GB unit can't be "downgraded" to a smaller, more pocketable 128.
I don't think "holding on to the guy in front of you" is really "drafting.";)
Besides, I can never tell if I'm drafting (you can tell when you're just close enough to get kicked in the head) or just getting punched by the guy next to me.
Manual Honda Hybrids: better on hwy, worse in city
on
10 Techno-Cool Cars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Honda's hybrid Civic and Insight both have options for manual transmissions. The Civic does better with manual on highways, as does the Insight. The CVTs are much better than traditional automatics, especially in town. Note the tiny difference between highway and city on the Insight CVTs, and the fact that city mileage is better on the CVT civic than the manual civic. And, oddly, the Hybrid Civic CVT gets better mileage in the city than it does on the highway, much like the Toyota Prius. It is also important to note that yearly emissions are lower with the CVTs.
Also, the non-hybrid Civic HX can be ordered with a CVT (good for comparison, and isolation of CVT performance): 36/44 (manual) 4.90 tons/yr 35/40 (CVT auto) 5.20 tons/yr
Numbers are quoted from this site. I really wish they'd label the trim lines-- it's hard to pick one civic from another without them.
CVTs are Continuously Variable Transmissions. The gear ratio is smoothly variable in realtime-- no fixed "gears" like traditional manual and automatic transmissions. This allows the car to select the most efficient gear ratio all the time. It also makes my HX CVT accelerate much more like the manual. No "slip".
I think that you have misunderstood the wording of the FCC decision. I agree with you that forcing the phone companies to share their backbone bandwidth (which they have mostly paid for) makes no sense. However, the FCC decision *forces* companies to continue sharing their systems to voice companies (UNE-P, I believe). UNE-P linesharing makes use of their whole network, and is costly and somewhat unfair-- even though it does seem to be benefitting consumers. (AT&T is undercutting SBC's price here in Indiana now through UNE-P sharing)
What IS lost in the decision is the ability of providers who have their own backbones and switches (like Covad) to use ONLY the high-frequency portion of the local loop. Covad has no need for and is not asking for access to the phone company backbones-- only the last bit of wire that connects to your house. Note also that not only do YOU pay the phone company for that wire (and your voice service) already, but Covad pays them an additional fee on top of it.
I'd like to point out that just saying "it ain't so" is not a valid argument, either. While not anonymous, you have provided no citations either, which hardly lends you credibility.
If you have some information you could show us that would back up your claims that the phone network is not subsidized, please post them. It affects this discussion a great deal.
Neither of these articles is a great source of info, but they indicate *some* subsidies. Finding historical info on the 'net is harder. If you have better sources indicating that there are no subsidies and that there have been no subsidies historically, PLEASE post them. It changes the whole picture.
Subsidies are not the only government benefit. As you point out, tax breaks are not subsidies. But they DO give these companies a financial boost. As do fees imposed on your telephone bill by the government, which aren't taxes because the money goes straight to the phone companies.
Anyway-- post what info you've got! The whole issue is not black and white. There are some subsidies, but how big? There are tax breaks, and grants of right-of-way, but some right-of-way is purchased. Was the purchase discounted? By how much? The CLECs are paying for the lines they use, and the 1996 Act dictates that the price be the same as the telco pays-- but states can change this. How many changed it, and which changed it to amounts below cost? Covad built infrastructure, too-- a huge backbone, and they use their own switches. All we're talking about access to is the unused high-frequency portion of the local loop. NOT telco backbones, switches, or other equipment.
"Oh, and by the way, wherever there's a cable company there's competition. "
Except where the cable company (like, oh, Comcast) is owned by the phone company (like, um, AT&T). Expect THOSE areas to see price hikes and quality drops. Bully for you if you've got options, but this sucks mightily for a LOT of people.
Before the 1996 regulations, the "Innovation and Competition" was limited to very pricey T1s and ISDN available from a single source (your phone company), despite the fact that DSL technology was available.
Honestly, I would prefer the government own the lines (like they do the roads). But failing that, I'll take mandated competition over oppressive, incompetent, taxpayer-funded monopolies any day.
We already get the subsidized food at reduced cost.
Before the telecoms act of 1996, we had government subsidies with no benefit to us. There was no DSL (although the technology was available-- it's not a new idea). Just $1500 T1s and ISDN.
To use your analogy, the situation was more along the lines of paying farmers to farm, and then having them sell year-old dried vegetables for quadruple market value because they were the only game in town.
But that analogy has one gigantic flaw-- in a given area, there are thousands of farmers, all competing to keep price down. If there were 500 phone companies servicing my hometown, all sharing the subsidy, I imagaine these rules would be totally unnecessary.
I'm sick of re-re-re-posting the exact same thing in response to comments like this, but here's one more go at it:
1. The CLECs pay the ILECs the same for the lines as the ILECs pay themselves, unless local governments change it. In that case, it is stupid. Fair is fair.
2. Those lines are build on public land with tax money. The ILECs are not the only party with money invested there-- you and I paid for that stuff, too.
3. Do you remember there being any DSL BEFORE they were forced to open their lines in 1996? No? Thought so. Remember ISDN and $1500 T1 Lines? DSL is an old tech that could have been deployed back then. Why didn't they? Because with no competition, there was no incentive to upgrade OR lower prices. The fact that we have DSL at all is a direct result of the competition jump-start that act gave the market.
The government may not own it outright, but if the government's going to use my money and public land to benefit the ILECs, I think it's close enough. If you think sinking government money into a private company in return for nothing is a good idea, well, that's bullshit too, junior.
Those lines were heavily subsidized by tax money, and the phone companies have priceless right-of-way for their lines. (Try calling your government and asking if you can put up some poles to run an ethernet cable to your ISP)
It's hardly "private property" when public money built it.
And to top it off, it's not "free," either. The CLECs (like Covad) must pay the phone companies the *same* rates they charge to their own DSL divisions. Covad pays SBC the same as SBC's DSL division pays SBC. And on top of that, SBC (or whoever your ILEC is) gets paid for the damn phone line in the first place.
So, they get paid for the line, AND paid AGAIN for the line by Covad, AND tax money, tax breaks, government assistance, and right-of-way to build the lines in the first place, and you think that keeping the lines open for competition isn't fair?
You and me, with our tax dollars. All of that infrastructure was subsidized with tax dollars and priceless right-of-way. Only seems fair that something we all paid for ought to be open to competition!!
They have made this argument before, (we won't upgrade until we can do long distance) and were granted that right on condition of allowing competition on their lines. Now, they're refusing to upgrade again, saying that the competition is unfair. And the FCC has just handed them a huge monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
If the server your two gamers are playing on is halfway between them, the distance drops to 12,000 miles round-trip. Giving each player a ping time of ~75ms, or about what I'm stuck at on most Battlefield 1942 servers as it is. Of course, the wiring and routing aren't that good, or I wouldn't be stuck at 75ms talking to the west coast from the midwest. And the server won't always be dead-center, so somebody will have to suck it up and deal with the lousy ping.
But still, there is the *potential* for gamers to be able to play the other side of the world, even without drilling a hole through its chewy center to get the distance down to 8000 miles.
And it's a BIG market. This had never occured to me before your post, but gamers clamoring for lower pings may beat the space program to solving that pesky lightspeed problem!
Actually, I have found several out-of-print books and software that is no longer available (old Lucasarts games, etc...) in their database, not available for sale.
That said, I still think a non-retailer database is a fantastic idea. It would be nice if the database itself was freely available, so that we don't have a repeat of the CDDB fiasco. ("It's free! Wait, no it's not!")
That's silly. It's not a circular argument-- they don't take off because they weigh a lot, not because they lack smooth undersides. Go to a Honda dealership and test drive an Insight. Take it up to its maximum speed, and do it on a hill just for some added kick. You will not take off.
Consumer cars, even ones with all-aluminum bodies and reduced weight engines and components like the Insight are too heavy to leave the road.
I'm sorry I wasn't more explicit. Consumer cars don't have to worry about lifting off because the lift-to-weight ratio in a normal car is not high enough to matter. Race cars do not have 5 seats and a large trunk with a spare tire and a jack, or a stereo, AC, heater, headlights, interior wood trim, cushy suspension, 8 glass windows, or a heavy steel frame and body. It's not just because the bottom's rough that cars don't fly into the air all the time. It's because they're heavy and not travelling at 230mph.
Now, you are correct about doing it for added traction. People who take their cars out to drag race are interested in having *additional* downforce, since your force of friction is directly proportional to the downforce, and your engine is so big that drag means nothing to you. But still, nobody except crazy high-end cars is actually worried about leaving the road.
Korea is farther along a path similar to Japan's than China is. The transition from making cheap knockoffs to making quality products happens over time, as money from selling the cheap stuff gradually raises the standard of living and the salaries of the people designing and building the stuff.
Korea is just now at the point (there was a big Newsweek article about Samsung that I can't find on the web) where companies like Samsung are openly changing strategy from "undercutting price" to "winning sales on quality and features".
China is undergoing a similar transition, but is not as far along. Chinese electronics are finally starting to appear on shelves, but Apex TVs and the like are still definitely the low-end of things, and are selling on price (or DRM-unfriendly quasi-legal features). When their labor costs become too high to sell on price alone anymore, they too will make a strategy switch like the Japanese did.
It would seem that a rough underside is desirable *if* you have a downforce problem. This is not something your average commuter is worried about-- nobody lifts off, even at 80mph, on their way to work.
However, a smooth underside would seem to be beneficial for air resistance and thus to fuel economy. Honda's engineers and fluid dynamicists and whatnot agree, as their most efficient car (the Honda Insight) has a smooth underside to reduce drag.
In particular, note where the article states "Another important aerodynamic detail that greatly contributes to the Insight body's low coefficient of drag is the careful management of underbody airflow." And the numbers they quote for power required to push the car through the air are equally revealing-- "In comparison, the Honda Civic Hatchback, with roughly the same 1.9 square-meter frontal area as the Insight, has a Cd of 0.36, and needs around 32 percent more power to operate at the same speed as the Insight. "
So there you have it. Without the smooth underside, rear-wheel covers, and a tapered back-end-- you need 32% more power to push a car with roughly the same frontal area. I'm not sure I'd say "A rough undersurface of the car is actually desirable" without qualifying it by adding "for a race car, but not for a normal automobile."
I'm so old, I remember when games were a quarter to start with!!
I've posted this before, but this time gets a disclaimer. This one isn't quite a dupe, since we got a new link. New article, new take on the subject, blahblahblah. But I make my offer anyway:
/. as a proofreader and duplicate checker. Additionally, I will assist if necessary (at a negotiable hourly rate) in adding code to automatically send the draft article blurbs to my wireless device. I am unable to proofread overnight (I have to sleep sometime), so that will have to be covered by another shift, or written off as "happy slashdot error time."
For a reasonable fee per story, I am offering my services to the editors of
Note that volunteers for the night shift and hangover/holiday time have already been obtained.
I cannot guarantee 100% error correction, but I will stake my job on significantly decreased rates of grammar and spelling mistakes, and far fewer duplicate postings.
I would also like a T-shirt that says "I work for slashdot".
Please, for the sake of your readers, hire me. I want to help!
This offer will be repeated (as is fitting) with each dupe.
I should clarify what caused the fire. An LED is essentially just a short circuit, but only when it is hooked up in the right direction. Had I reversed that connector, the thing just wouldn't have turned on.
LEDs don't need much power, so the wires were tiny. But by connecting them to wear the switch should go, they were hooked straight to the power supply! The tiny wires heated up just like an electric stove under the full force of the 250W power supply.
I was building a desktop on the cheap when I was still in college-- so keep in mind while reading this that the whole system was made from the lowest-quality and most inexpensive components i could find. I'd built probably a half-dozen before, and serviced more than a few other peoples' machines. Which, of course, means I got lazy and overconfident-- and accidentally connected the "Power" LED line to what should have been the power switch connector on the motherboard. Manged to get the polarity right, and everything. Finished putting it together, and plugged it in.
It came on instantly, but as this was before "soft" power switches were everywhere, I just figured the pushbutton switch was already in the ON position. After watching the POST and seeing everything okay, I started to walk away-- and then the room filled with smoke. Fast. Those little case fans are wicked efficient for that, apparently. So I dove for the plug, and pulled it out.
I opened the case back up, and the inside of the PC was blackened with soot, and the tiny LED wires were still glowing-- their insulation burned clean off. Clipped the wires off and taped the ends, plugged the switch line in instead, and everything just worked. And continued to do so until today, 6 years later.
Took forever to get that damned burnt-plastic smell out of my room, though!
Oh, that's great. Let's give people who forcibly have sex with their victims a painful and difficult-to-cure disease THAT IS SPREAD BY HAVING SEX.
Now their next victim not only gets raped, but gets the added bonus of receiving the same punishment as a convicted rapist.
It's not the music that's an issue-- how often do you upload all 20GB? It's using the device as a portable HDD that gets killed by USB1.1.
USB2.0 is backwards compatible with USB1.1, and would have been a perfect choice. Creative's Zen ipod clone uses Firewire AND USB1.1. Either solution would have covered speed and wide compatibility.
I really like their modular design, the built-in FM, and the ability to ID songs from the radio by audio fingerprint. But USB 1.1?! I will wait for USB 2.0, or Firewire+USB1.1. (gotta have that compatibility with old stuff as well as the speed!!)
It has a *very* limited range. Like you, and maybe the car next to you, if you both have your windows open and the other driver has a good antenna. Hell of a lot cleaner than a tape adapter, and easier than pulling your stereo out to add an RF modulator so that you can plug the thing directly in.
The 128MB Neuros player can be upgraded via a backpack to be exactly the same as the 20GB unit. Total price for the 128MB player and the 20GB backpack is only $430, just $30 more than the 20GB unit. The 20GB version is much larger and heavier, and cannot be "downgraded" to be the same as the 128MB unit. By going with the 128MB unit and a backpack, you can have a small, light, solid-state player for the gym (or whatever) and a 20GB backpack to hold all of your music, too. With the 20GB backpack on, it is *identical* to the 20GB unit. The 128MB piece is not available as a backpack, though.
If you jog with it, this is definitely the route to go. Tiny player for jogging, plug in the backpack for huge capacity.
You can confirm this cost by hitting the CompUSA preorder site (ship date of tomorrow, feb. 25th).
http://www.compusa.com/promos/neuros/default.asp
Fairly expensive. But I do like the built-in FM transmitter. Also, I would recommend buying the 128MB unit, as the 20GB HDD will be available as a "backpack" that makes the 128 exactly the same (size, shape, capacity) as the 20GB unit. However, the 20GB unit can't be "downgraded" to a smaller, more pocketable 128.
I don't think "holding on to the guy in front of you" is really "drafting." ;)
Besides, I can never tell if I'm drafting (you can tell when you're just close enough to get kicked in the head) or just getting punched by the guy next to me.
Honda's hybrid Civic and Insight both have options for manual transmissions. The Civic does better with manual on highways, as does the Insight. The CVTs are much better than traditional automatics, especially in town. Note the tiny difference between highway and city on the Insight CVTs, and the fact that city mileage is better on the CVT civic than the manual civic. And, oddly, the Hybrid Civic CVT gets better mileage in the city than it does on the highway, much like the Toyota Prius. It is also important to note that yearly emissions are lower with the CVTs.
Insight:
61 city/68 hwy (manual) 3.50 tons/yr emissions
57/56 (CVT auto) 3.10 tons/yr emissions
Civic Hybrid:
46/51 (manual) 4.10 tons/yr emissions
48/47 (CVT auto) 4.00 tons/yr emissions
Also, the non-hybrid Civic HX can be ordered with a CVT (good for comparison, and isolation of CVT performance):
36/44 (manual) 4.90 tons/yr
35/40 (CVT auto) 5.20 tons/yr
Numbers are quoted from this site. I really wish they'd label the trim lines-- it's hard to pick one civic from another without them.
CVTs are Continuously Variable Transmissions. The gear ratio is smoothly variable in realtime-- no fixed "gears" like traditional manual and automatic transmissions. This allows the car to select the most efficient gear ratio all the time. It also makes my HX CVT accelerate much more like the manual. No "slip".
Hope that helps!!
I think that you have misunderstood the wording of the FCC decision. I agree with you that forcing the phone companies to share their backbone bandwidth (which they have mostly paid for) makes no sense. However, the FCC decision *forces* companies to continue sharing their systems to voice companies (UNE-P, I believe). UNE-P linesharing makes use of their whole network, and is costly and somewhat unfair-- even though it does seem to be benefitting consumers. (AT&T is undercutting SBC's price here in Indiana now through UNE-P sharing)
What IS lost in the decision is the ability of providers who have their own backbones and switches (like Covad) to use ONLY the high-frequency portion of the local loop. Covad has no need for and is not asking for access to the phone company backbones-- only the last bit of wire that connects to your house. Note also that not only do YOU pay the phone company for that wire (and your voice service) already, but Covad pays them an additional fee on top of it.
I'd like to point out that just saying "it ain't so" is not a valid argument, either. While not anonymous, you have provided no citations either, which hardly lends you credibility.
If you have some information you could show us that would back up your claims that the phone network is not subsidized, please post them. It affects this discussion a great deal.
This wired link indicates a subsidy (the rural-access subsidy, I believe), as does http://www.thedigest.com/111/111-28.html. The second article refers to subsidies buried in long-distance charges.
Neither of these articles is a great source of info, but they indicate *some* subsidies. Finding historical info on the 'net is harder. If you have better sources indicating that there are no subsidies and that there have been no subsidies historically, PLEASE post them. It changes the whole picture.
Subsidies are not the only government benefit. As you point out, tax breaks are not subsidies. But they DO give these companies a financial boost. As do fees imposed on your telephone bill by the government, which aren't taxes because the money goes straight to the phone companies.
Anyway-- post what info you've got! The whole issue is not black and white. There are some subsidies, but how big? There are tax breaks, and grants of right-of-way, but some right-of-way is purchased. Was the purchase discounted? By how much? The CLECs are paying for the lines they use, and the 1996 Act dictates that the price be the same as the telco pays-- but states can change this. How many changed it, and which changed it to amounts below cost? Covad built infrastructure, too-- a huge backbone, and they use their own switches. All we're talking about access to is the unused high-frequency portion of the local loop. NOT telco backbones, switches, or other equipment.
Anyway, show us what you've got!
Your analogy is pointless. Farmers get subsidies. We get cheaper food. Because for a given area, there are thousands of farmers serving it.
If my town had 500 phone companies, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"Oh, and by the way, wherever there's a cable company there's competition. "
Except where the cable company (like, oh, Comcast) is owned by the phone company (like, um, AT&T). Expect THOSE areas to see price hikes and quality drops. Bully for you if you've got options, but this sucks mightily for a LOT of people.
Before the 1996 regulations, the "Innovation and Competition" was limited to very pricey T1s and ISDN available from a single source (your phone company), despite the fact that DSL technology was available.
Honestly, I would prefer the government own the lines (like they do the roads). But failing that, I'll take mandated competition over oppressive, incompetent, taxpayer-funded monopolies any day.
We already get the subsidized food at reduced cost.
Before the telecoms act of 1996, we had government subsidies with no benefit to us. There was no DSL (although the technology was available-- it's not a new idea). Just $1500 T1s and ISDN.
To use your analogy, the situation was more along the lines of paying farmers to farm, and then having them sell year-old dried vegetables for quadruple market value because they were the only game in town.
But that analogy has one gigantic flaw-- in a given area, there are thousands of farmers, all competing to keep price down. If there were 500 phone companies servicing my hometown, all sharing the subsidy, I imagaine these rules would be totally unnecessary.
I'm sick of re-re-re-posting the exact same thing in response to comments like this, but here's one more go at it:
1. The CLECs pay the ILECs the same for the lines as the ILECs pay themselves, unless local governments change it. In that case, it is stupid. Fair is fair.
2. Those lines are build on public land with tax money. The ILECs are not the only party with money invested there-- you and I paid for that stuff, too.
3. Do you remember there being any DSL BEFORE they were forced to open their lines in 1996? No? Thought so. Remember ISDN and $1500 T1 Lines? DSL is an old tech that could have been deployed back then. Why didn't they? Because with no competition, there was no incentive to upgrade OR lower prices. The fact that we have DSL at all is a direct result of the competition jump-start that act gave the market.
The government may not own it outright, but if the government's going to use my money and public land to benefit the ILECs, I think it's close enough. If you think sinking government money into a private company in return for nothing is a good idea, well, that's bullshit too, junior.
Those lines were heavily subsidized by tax money, and the phone companies have priceless right-of-way for their lines. (Try calling your government and asking if you can put up some poles to run an ethernet cable to your ISP)
It's hardly "private property" when public money built it.
And to top it off, it's not "free," either. The CLECs (like Covad) must pay the phone companies the *same* rates they charge to their own DSL divisions. Covad pays SBC the same as SBC's DSL division pays SBC. And on top of that, SBC (or whoever your ILEC is) gets paid for the damn phone line in the first place.
So, they get paid for the line, AND paid AGAIN for the line by Covad, AND tax money, tax breaks, government assistance, and right-of-way to build the lines in the first place, and you think that keeping the lines open for competition isn't fair?
Screw that.
You and me, with our tax dollars. All of that infrastructure was subsidized with tax dollars and priceless right-of-way. Only seems fair that something we all paid for ought to be open to competition!!
They have made this argument before, (we won't upgrade until we can do long distance) and were granted that right on condition of allowing competition on their lines. Now, they're refusing to upgrade again, saying that the competition is unfair. And the FCC has just handed them a huge monopoly.