Any new regulation can only be a band-aid solution.
The correct solution is to break the monopolies by creating a free market.
Municipal public fibre optic infrastructure.
Layer 2 (maybe even layer 1) service to every building as a public service. Access to that infrastructure with the same access rules we use for the roads. (In other words, completely open for private and commercial use)
with a fibre bundle to every home any service provider who wanted to provide Internet, TV, Telephone or any other innovative service could go to the municipal exchange and patch us in to their gear.
This would set the stage for a vibrant competitive market for telecoms. It would allow private, non-commercial telecoms activities. It would be CHEAPER than running cable and copper to every building as we do now. It would be future-proof because the fibre has effectively unlimited capacity.
There is already great competition for IP service, the Internet is a vibrant market place except for the last mile. Go to any public exchange and shop for IP transit and you will have dozens of providers competing for your business. Throttling, DNS hijacking, p2p filtering.... these are exclusively last-mile monopoly problems.
We all know that last-mile telecoms infrastructure is a natural monopoly just like power lines, roads and sewers. So why don't we stop beating around the bush creating heavily regulated and subsidized private monopolies then constantly fighting with them and just run the last-mile ourselves?
There is no 'right to leave a pretty corpse' and there is no 'right to life'. Those terms are not particularly meaningful or helpful in a debate.
There *are* property rights. It is property rights that create or at least underpin a free society. The government cannot take what belongs to you and other people cannot take what belongs to you. (except where prescribed specifically by law.. as in taxes/contracts) In the west it is property rights that determine what happens to a cadaver's organs.
Now, when an individual dies they no longer exist as a property rights holder and their possessions pass to others. This of course includes their body. As it stands, in the absence of a will(a contract) all of their possessions pass to their next of kin. (subject to taxation in some regions) As the owner of the cadaver it is your next of kin's right to dispose of their (your) organs as they see fit.
There is almost no chance that this will change in the west. We might at some point institute an 'assume they want to donate them' policy but the next of kin will always have the final say.
Personally, I want the donation system to be opt-out. The majority of people are stupid, emotional and lazy. We should nudge them toward the correct decision (donation).
You are correct about organs. But, as many have pointed out, the problem is that harvesting organs from people you kill creates a profit motive for killing people and thus creates pressure for more people to be killed. *That* is the problem.
but any ol' whoever can already get a cert for a specific domain name for ten bucks. What difference does it make if it is for a domain including subdomains?
This seems like a good thing. I'm all for more open source software in government.
Our current government is however composed of half-wit partisan hacks. Genuinely bush-light.
"...government's interest was spurred by a desire to reduce expenditures during the recession."
They say and do mind-blowingly stupid things like that while presenting their spending stimulus bill. They will look for ways to reduce government spending while looking for ways to increase government spending.
...that nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state.
Ah yes, we call that ethnic pride combined with nationalism. Both of which are barbarisms which cannot stand in the light of reason.
Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace.
I get where you're coming from on that but I don't agree. Poverty is certainly a huge driver of conflict but I think it is not the key to this one. I think that the key to this one IS religion.
Both sides are intransigent because they actually believe that they have invisible friends who promised them this particular patch of desert.
ROFL!! Boy are YOU ever the dupe. The majority of all the nations represented in the security council are tyrannies of one form or another.
Sigh. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post as you seem to have reading comprehension deficiencies.
The general assembly is representative of the governments of the member nations. 1 nation, 1 vote. That is by definition democratic. The legitimacy of the governments of the member nations is not germain to the characterization of the assembly as democratic.
Maybe another real-world example will help you understand. A trade industry association with let's say 15 corporate members may structure itself such that each member CEO gets one vote when they make decisions about press releases or lobbying activites. That is a democratic structure. It does not mean or imply in any way that the member CEOs were elected by the public.
...experts have not pinpointed the source or motive of the attack and could not say whether the destructive program was created by an individual hacker or whether the Russian government may have had some involvement.
Classic propoganda. Shame on Julian Barnes of the LA Times and the unnamed senior military leaders.
So 17 UN resolutions referencing WMDs represents what to you, moron?
That is the result of the disfunctional and undemocratic security council where the USA has a vetoe. Don't confuse security council resolutions for something representing world opinion. It is the general assembly that is democratic and representative, the security council is a private club.
not everyone who likes tv and movies and have internet connections get them from the internet.
True, but they *should*;) Besides, I wasnt't say that they DO it, I was saying that they WOULD/could do it if their Internet connection were fast enough. They just don't know about it yet and/or their Internet connections are not fast enough.
I would say that everyone (fine, not everyone, 90% of people with computers) who enjoy watching tv/movies at home would benefit from receiving those tv shows and movies via a fast Internet connection rather than broadcasts.
gp was saying that people would not be able to use more bandwidth. I think that is crazy. People will want to get their movies via p2p in as little time as possible. I think that is how maintream users can and would use as much bandwidth as they can get up to the limit of their PCs disk drive.
The whole point of this (which has been overshadowed by TFA bringing HOAs into it) is to separate the last-mile infrastructure from the IP service. (TFA is NOT the originator of this concept)
Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that your HOA should be your ISP or that you should buy Internet service from anyone other than existing ISPs.
What is being suggested is that we should stop this system of perpetualy renting the physical cables that run into our homes. Paying up front the true cost of running a fiber strand from your house to the nearest carrier neutral datacentre frees you from monopoly opression forever. In this scenario you can switch Internet or phone or even TV providers at the push of a button. That puts you in the position of power.
- the cost of the last-mile is 60-80% of your current Internet service bill. - if you are going to buy your house rather than rent it then why not buy rather than rent your last-mile fiber?
BTW, I'd like to offer to buy your driveway and rent it back to you for the next 40 years. Be warned, I may at some point be 'forced' to restrict the weight of your car so as not to unduly stress my poorly maintainted ashphalt.
If you are a renter then it is probably not better.
Owning your own last-mile is akin to owning your own home and the same costs/benefits apply.
Do you want to rent forever? if so then by all means rent your last-mile forever. It is easier and doesn't cost anything up front. In the long run it is of course much more expensive for you.
As for torrents and net neutrality... The only reasonable 'houses with tails' proposal is for the homeonwer/hoa/municipality to build and maintain the last-mile fiber cables. Each individual would subscribe to Internet and/or other services from regular ISPs.
The difference is that in the current model the ISP puts up the cash to build the last-mile connection to your home. They don't do this for free; you pay for it in your monthly bill. It is in fact the largest part of your internet connection bill.
If you pay $50/month for internet access it is probably about $30 for the last mile and $20 for IP service.
The differnece is that when you have 'paid off' your last-mile infrastructure after about 5 years of service with your ISP they do not stop charging you for it.
It is the differnece between renting a car perpetually and buying it.
Furthermore, the ISPs have very little incentive to upgrade ancient infrastrcture. That is why so many of us are still on DSL/cable systems when fiber is the same cost. Why should they upgrade when you continue to rent the old stuff?
Because we already have the technology, and no one does it.
It does not happen much because people are short sighted. They will choose to pay $55/month with no setup fee rather than pay $1500 up front then $20/month for 10x faster service for the next 20 years.
no, no, no. Everyone seems to be misunderstanding the proposal.
The idea is to build our own fiber lines. NOT to set up our own ISPs.
The point is that we should build out from our homes to the ISPs and subscribe to IP services from existing ISPs.
We build and maintain the last-mile because it is simple infrastructure. We would then be free to buy phone/tv/IP services in a genuinely free market environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Gah, this crap is so tiring.
Any new regulation can only be a band-aid solution.
The correct solution is to break the monopolies by creating a free market.
Municipal public fibre optic infrastructure.
Layer 2 (maybe even layer 1) service to every building as a public service.
Access to that infrastructure with the same access rules we use for the roads.
(In other words, completely open for private and commercial use)
with a fibre bundle to every home any service provider who wanted to provide Internet, TV, Telephone or any other innovative service could go to the municipal exchange and patch us in to their gear.
This would set the stage for a vibrant competitive market for telecoms.
It would allow private, non-commercial telecoms activities.
It would be CHEAPER than running cable and copper to every building as we do now.
It would be future-proof because the fibre has effectively unlimited capacity.
There is already great competition for IP service, the Internet is a vibrant market place except for the last mile.
Go to any public exchange and shop for IP transit and you will have dozens of providers competing for your business.
Throttling, DNS hijacking, p2p filtering.... these are exclusively last-mile monopoly problems.
We all know that last-mile telecoms infrastructure is a natural monopoly just like power lines, roads and sewers.
So why don't we stop beating around the bush creating heavily regulated and subsidized private monopolies then constantly fighting with them and just run the last-mile ourselves?
Your mom is a major threat to the ozone layer! /high on laughing gas
lolz
wut?
There is no 'right to leave a pretty corpse' and there is no 'right to life'.
Those terms are not particularly meaningful or helpful in a debate.
There *are* property rights. It is property rights that create or at least underpin a free society.
The government cannot take what belongs to you and other people cannot take what belongs to you.
(except where prescribed specifically by law.. as in taxes/contracts)
In the west it is property rights that determine what happens to a cadaver's organs.
Now, when an individual dies they no longer exist as a property rights holder and their possessions pass to others.
This of course includes their body.
As it stands, in the absence of a will(a contract) all of their possessions pass to their next of kin. (subject to taxation in some regions)
As the owner of the cadaver it is your next of kin's right to dispose of their (your) organs as they see fit.
There is almost no chance that this will change in the west.
We might at some point institute an 'assume they want to donate them' policy but the next of kin will always have the final say.
Personally, I want the donation system to be opt-out.
The majority of people are stupid, emotional and lazy. We should nudge them toward the correct decision (donation).
You are correct about organs. But, as many have pointed out, the problem is that harvesting organs from people you kill creates a profit motive for killing people and thus creates pressure for more people to be killed.
*That* is the problem.
...constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of Parliament.
Our parliament is contemptible.
Question period is disgusting and shameful.
Watching it on TV makes me sick.
Dear MPs, Grow the fuck up!
The election is over, this is the part where you are supposed to do your fucking job.
what, me bitter?
but any ol' whoever can already get a cert for a specific domain name for ten bucks.
What difference does it make if it is for a domain including subdomains?
This seems like a good thing. I'm all for more open source software in government.
Our current government is however composed of half-wit partisan hacks. Genuinely bush-light.
"...government's interest was spurred by a desire to reduce expenditures during the recession."
They say and do mind-blowingly stupid things like that while presenting their spending stimulus bill.
They will look for ways to reduce government spending while looking for ways to increase government spending.
Heck of a job Harper.
God help us all.
that's the very secular city right?
3 heart-felt cheers for secular jews!
Now get out there and vote!
hell ya.
With one additional step: take all the children into protective custody first.
They are the only ones we can be sure are innocent.
...that nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state.
Ah yes, we call that ethnic pride combined with nationalism. Both of which are barbarisms which cannot stand in the light of reason.
Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace.
I get where you're coming from on that but I don't agree.
Poverty is certainly a huge driver of conflict but I think it is not the key to this one.
I think that the key to this one IS religion.
Both sides are intransigent because they actually believe that they have invisible friends who promised them this particular patch of desert.
ROFL!! Boy are YOU ever the dupe. The majority of all the nations represented in the security council are tyrannies of one form or another.
Sigh.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post as you seem to have reading comprehension deficiencies.
The general assembly is representative of the governments of the member nations.
1 nation, 1 vote. That is by definition democratic. The legitimacy of the governments of the member nations is not germain to the characterization of the assembly as democratic.
Maybe another real-world example will help you understand.
A trade industry association with let's say 15 corporate members may structure itself such that each member CEO gets one vote when they make decisions about press releases or lobbying activites.
That is a democratic structure.
It does not mean or imply in any way that the member CEOs were elected by the public.
Except when they agree with you presumably, like just before the war.
You have asolutely no basis for that accusation.
Presume whatever you want, that doesn't make it true.
Try forming your opinions from observation rather than wild speculation.
...experts have not pinpointed the source or motive of the attack and could not say whether the destructive program was created by an individual hacker or whether the Russian government may have had some involvement.
Classic propoganda.
Shame on Julian Barnes of the LA Times and the unnamed senior military leaders.
So 17 UN resolutions referencing WMDs represents what to you, moron?
That is the result of the disfunctional and undemocratic security council where the USA has a vetoe.
Don't confuse security council resolutions for something representing world opinion.
It is the general assembly that is democratic and representative, the security council is a private club.
But the whole world believed that Iraq had WMDs
That is so ludicrously wrong you must have been watching american news.
The vast majority of the world did NOT believe that WMD nonsense.
not everyone who likes tv and movies and have internet connections get them from the internet.
True, but they *should* ;)
Besides, I wasnt't say that they DO it, I was saying that they WOULD/could do it if their Internet connection were fast enough.
They just don't know about it yet and/or their Internet connections are not fast enough.
I would say that everyone (fine, not everyone, 90% of people with computers) who enjoy watching tv/movies at home would benefit from receiving those tv shows and movies via a fast Internet connection rather than broadcasts.
gp was saying that people would not be able to use more bandwidth. I think that is crazy. People will want to get their movies via p2p in as little time as possible.
I think that is how maintream users can and would use as much bandwidth as they can get up to the limit of their PCs disk drive.
it takes three right? ;)
...much much much more than they ever will (or can) use
i contend that my hyperbole was no greater than the hyperbole in the post to which I was replying.
ok fine, not 'everbody' just people who like tv and movies and have internet connections.
The whole point of this (which has been overshadowed by TFA bringing HOAs into it) is to separate the last-mile infrastructure from the IP service.
(TFA is NOT the originator of this concept)
Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that your HOA should be your ISP or that you should buy Internet service from anyone other than existing ISPs.
What is being suggested is that we should stop this system of perpetualy renting the physical cables that run into our homes.
Paying up front the true cost of running a fiber strand from your house to the nearest carrier neutral datacentre frees you from monopoly opression forever.
In this scenario you can switch Internet or phone or even TV providers at the push of a button. That puts you in the position of power.
- the cost of the last-mile is 60-80% of your current Internet service bill.
- if you are going to buy your house rather than rent it then why not buy rather than rent your last-mile fiber?
BTW, I'd like to offer to buy your driveway and rent it back to you for the next 40 years.
Be warned, I may at some point be 'forced' to restrict the weight of your car so as not to unduly stress my poorly maintainted ashphalt.
If you are a renter then it is probably not better.
Owning your own last-mile is akin to owning your own home and the same costs/benefits apply.
Do you want to rent forever? if so then by all means rent your last-mile forever.
It is easier and doesn't cost anything up front. In the long run it is of course much more expensive for you.
As for torrents and net neutrality...
The only reasonable 'houses with tails' proposal is for the homeonwer/hoa/municipality to build and maintain the last-mile fiber cables.
Each individual would subscribe to Internet and/or other services from regular ISPs.
The difference is that in the current model the ISP puts up the cash to build the last-mile connection to your home.
They don't do this for free; you pay for it in your monthly bill. It is in fact the largest part of your internet connection bill.
If you pay $50/month for internet access it is probably about $30 for the last mile and $20 for IP service.
The differnece is that when you have 'paid off' your last-mile infrastructure after about 5 years of service with your ISP they do not stop charging you for it.
It is the differnece between renting a car perpetually and buying it.
Furthermore, the ISPs have very little incentive to upgrade ancient infrastrcture. That is why so many of us are still on DSL/cable systems when fiber is the same cost.
Why should they upgrade when you continue to rent the old stuff?
Because we already have the technology, and no one does it.
It does not happen much because people are short sighted.
They will choose to pay $55/month with no setup fee rather than pay $1500 up front then $20/month for 10x faster service for the next 20 years.
no, no, no.
Everyone seems to be misunderstanding the proposal.
The idea is to build our own fiber lines.
NOT to set up our own ISPs.
The point is that we should build out from our homes to the ISPs and subscribe to IP services from existing ISPs.
We build and maintain the last-mile because it is simple infrastructure. We would then be free to buy phone/tv/IP services in a genuinely free market environment.
because the verizon service just another vendor lock-in deal.
You cannot switch ISPs when verizon decides to start throttling your protocol of choice.