As to hating the FCC... well, that's quite likely regardless. I'm not inclined to see such organizations as necessary evils. And only to the extent they're actually necessary. When they do something that doesn't actually need to be done they just become straight evils... no hyphen.
As to it taking ten years to get Constellation up... do they need to know what frequency they'll be using NOW? Can't they just know roughly what range they'll have and then get more specific when they're closer to launch? Changing the frequency a prototype is going to use isn't a big deal.
its a big deal when you're about to launch the first wave. And from that point to them being in the air... 4 years seems well beyond any reasonable amount of time.
As to other reasons, I've looked into about 20 different agreements that gave a given ISP exclusive access and I haven't found one of them that didn't have a substantial bribe of some kind happening.
So, I'm sure the local governments will find an appropriate fig leaf to hang on it but that doesn't mean I have to pretend there isn't a cock behind it.
As to the law defining what the right of way means... the local governments can do that and the courts can have some cases that hammer it home. I'm not especially concerned with it if they're forbidden to screw with it.
All you're saying is that some places will try to use loopholes to not comply with the law. That's fine. I'll wait for them to do that and then sue them for it.
The courts are quite capable of judging things without having everything spelled out to the nth degree.
And really, I don't know why you're harping on that point. It has nothing to do with anything.
Lets say for the sake of argument that i do have to pass some 10,000 page fucking retarded legal document just to explain to idiots what providing right of way means?
Okay... so your argument is our society is so fucking stupid and corrupt that the justice system has to have everything spelled out.
I can't just say "you're not allowed to murder" someone. I have to say, "you're not allowed to murder them with a knife, a sword, a rock, a number 2 pencil, a weed whacker, an enraged badger..."... carried on to infinity.
Whatever.
As to hand waving, we disagree. Detailed legal codes that spell everything out are not required by the prohibition. You can LOCALLY write all the laws you want on the issue so long as you don't interfere with the right of way. Locally, I expect them to have lots of pages of legal verbiage. That's fine. they have a right to manage things as seems reasonable to them so long as they don't interfere with the right of way.
As to people lying in court proving that judges are incompetent to judge. I grant a lot of judges are incompetent and we might want to change the way legal precedence works so that we don't get legal creep.
One of the great joys I've come across are private arbitration courts. They're basically courts as they were before generations of judges so horribly polluted the system that very simple concepts became complicated.
In an arbitration court, the nature of the cases is often very simple. You often don't need a lawyer. The resolution of the cases tends to be very fast. And the level of satisfaction that most people report from such courts tends to be higher.
They're far cheaper, far more simple, far faster, and because there is less legal bullshit getting in the way people walk away from the cases more often feeling like understood what happened.
In a lot of ways, the US legal system could profit by resetting to something like where current arbitration courts are now. Amongst other things the US legal system could actually handle their current case load.
In Los Angeles, they have a backlog of cases for 4 to 5 years for some civil cases before they'll even hear your case because their case load is THAT backed up. And despite that, they're closing court houses because they don't have the money even with a 4 to 5 year backlog.
Of all the places to cut funding... the court system is one of the most dangerous. And a more reasonable solution rather than just saying "fuck you" to everyone that has a pending lawsuit, would be to simplify the process such that it was closer to its more streamlined self of about 100 years ago. Court cases used to go much faster with far less nonsense.
I'm not asking for due process to be circumvented at any point. I am simply pointing out that you can't just progressively make something more and more elaborate while retaining a minimum level of efficiency. If you don't have that efficiency then the court system itself doesn't work.
When you have a case backlog of 4 to 5 years... its broken. I don't want to wait for my day in court for more than a month at most. If your backlog is more than a month... then something is broken. You either need to increase judges/court houses to meet demand or you need to speed up the rate at which each judge deals with a case.
Its sensible. It encourages maximum exploitation. That is the point of regulations like that.
That was the point of the homestead act. They wanted to settle vast stretches of land IMMEDIATELY. That meant offering it basically for free. Anyone that went out there willing to work could within 5 years own a big stretch of land. The big finance interests couldn't just buy it all because they were required to actually develop it. Such interests are rarely capable of actually doing that enmass. They can develop something. But if given a chance they'll try to buy it all and then develop it slowly.
That is one of the problems with the way cellphone spectrum is sold. It shouldn't just be sold to three companies. It should be closer to wifi in that anyone can set it up. HOWEVER, you do require them to interlink their systems, allow rival users to roam on their network, etc. There is more than enough spectrum for everyone.
We don't need 3 companies owning all the spectrum It is absurd. The leases on spectrum should be specific to the region like conventional radio stations. If I lease a bit of spectrum in Florida for a radio station, I don't own that same frequency in California. I don't even own it in all of Florida.
Force the FCC to sell the cellphone spectrum piecemeal. In little 5 or 10 square mile zones. And require that they actually use it to maintain the lease.
What is more, if cell phone coverage in my area is shit, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to put a cell tower literally at my house that operates as a completely normal cell phone tower. Not only would I get great coverage there but all my neighbors would suddenly get good coverage as well.
Yes require me to get a license and a lease from the FCC etc. that's fine. Just make it something that a person can actually do... legally. The technology will take care of itself.
I've seen some DIY cell tower kits that cost no more than a couple thousand dollars. That's chump change. Link it into a respectable internet connection and you've got a cell tower.
The point is not to get money. The point is for people to not have leases they're not using.
When they did the homestead act, the point was not to raise money. the point was to rapidly settle and exploit large tracts of land.
That is my attitude towards the spectrum. I want it saturated. It want it used everywhere. Not owned everywhere. I want it used everywhere.
That means in low demand areas spectrum should be either given away for free or sold at a very low price.
In high demand areas you can sell it to the highest bidder that will ACTUALLY use it. If you're not ACTUALLY PERSONALLY going to use the spectrum then get the fuck out of the auction hall before I order an officer to mace you just for contempt.
vast swaths of the spectrum go unused because they're owned by people that don't use them. You should lose your lease if you do that. I don't care if you paid for it. The terms of the lease should be ACTUALLY using it.
The point of the FCC was not to generate revenue but rather to organize and civilize the use of radio spectrum. Ideally we should have 100 percent saturation with every frequency being used by someone.
In the case of very urban areas, it is going to make sense to let people bid those frequencies up so that more valuable uses of the frequency take a preeminent position. However, in areas that are less built up... suburban or rural areas... you should have so much open bandwidth that people can run their own 4G networks for example if there is room for it.
By all means have them integrate with the the national regs so that anyone with a 4G modem can link to it so long as they pay the roaming fees. I think most people that set up such a thing would be quite happy to operate under those conditions.
And you'd FULL national 4G coverage if you did that.
Which isn't so much of a big deal in urban areas that take that for granted. But you could have rural areas where their only broad band option would be something of that nature. If it is hosted by company in their own community for their own community... the rates might be reasonable and the maintenance expenses of a few 4G broadcast towers versus running fiber up every dirt road for 20 miles in every direction is no comparison.
What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a company or individual to exploit a frequency? A year? Two years?
And then of course there is losing the rights if you don't broadcast there. The warm up and cool down time should be similar.
I think two years of warm up time is the most I would give anyone. If you can't go live within 2 years then I don't want to give you rights to spectrum. I might be willing to make exceptions for really extraordinary projects like Musk's. But what am I offering then? Three years? Four? Four seems right on the edge of excessive even under extraordinary circumstances. If you can't go live in four years then I'm not giving you a lease.
And what is more with stuff like that, if you need four years because you're not going to go live until then... then I see no reason why people can't use that spectrum until then. So when you're project finally goes live they might have to get out of the way. But until then... who cares what they're doing because you're not using it.
Most of my stipulations refer to terrestrial use however. In rural communities especially they could have broadband internet served rather cheaply using unused radio frequencies. No need to run fiber. Just put up a broadcast tower and there is plenty of spectrum to serve the 500 people in the area with high speed internet.
You could even stretch that radically by using high directional broadcasts.
I saw something from a company called "air fiber" which boasted something like 3 gigabits at 10 miles. I could be getting the numbers wrong. The point is that it was a lot of bandwidth that could be pushed over a long distance without hurting anyone.
The FCC should make a point of getting out of the way of that stuff and not treating every part of the country like it is a major city with locally congested airwaves.
And a failed diagnostic rat costs a fraction of that money to train and if it fails you neither feel bad nor are especially judged for flushing it or feeding it to a hungry snake.
Their current reason is because they got paid by the big ISP.
In any case, you know what I mean and you're just being obtuse. So I'm going to skip over similar references.
As to the fat man leaving crumbs behind, you can do whatever you feel is reasonable to control crumbs or whatever analogy works for you. So long as you don't fuck with right of way in the conduit... do what you like. I'll leave that up to your city or county or state.
If you fuck with right of way under this provision you will be in violation of the prohibition on fucking with right of way and you'll get sued and forced by court order to stop doing that. But whatever you do that doesn't fuck with right of way... go for it.
What exactly do you think you're going to do that I'm going to care about? You say I can't stop you from fucking with the right of way... but that's what that prohibition would do. You would be unable to pass any law or regulation or policy or edict or writ or executive order that would interfere with the right of way in the conduit.
As to federal, state, and what constitutes baring the right of way... not really. I'm happy to leave that to the courts. I suspect idiots will try to pass laws that make that complicated but then the courts are typically quite happy to slap down stupid laws that are in violation of other laws. As to the fed versus state thing... depends. They have limited powers within their domains. Most growth in federal power over states has recently come via bribery and extortion not legal authority. That is "you do this thing the federal government wants and you'll get money. If you don't then we'll still take your state to pay for it but you won't get anything". That's how the ACA worked. And it is how common core program worked. And it is how the school lunch program worked. And there really is an endless list of these. Its just bribery. You do this and you get money. If you don't you get taxed anyway and get nothing. So most states cave to it.
Its a flaw in the constitution. The feds shouldn't be able to do that. If a state opts out of a voluntary program then their citizens shouldn't be taxed to support it. Reduce taxes by whatever the percentage is in those states. Then if the state itself wants to provide that service they can raise their own taxes by that amount and self fund a similar project but entirely under their own control.
As to defining what constitutes reasonable fees, my only requirement here actually is that everyone pay the same fee for the same amount of space and distance they travel in the system. If the big ISP runs cable through 1000 times as much conduit space as my little local ISP, I expect them to pay 1000 times more in conduit fees. If the fees are proportional to use and the rates paid are equal indifferent to which company is using them. I am happy enough with whatever the cities or states want to charge for conduit space.
The big ISPs will lobby to have those rates be as low and thus REASONABLE as possible. And in getting low rates for themselves they'll passively obtain low rates for everyone else.
It self corrects. I don't need to do anymore than require the fees be proportional and standardized in each area by that area. By all means, try to charge 1 million dollars per meter in a the conduit. That is of course not reasonable. But if every user of the system has to pay the same rate that fee will shut down all service in that area which would cause a political backlash that would correct the issue. Or it would raise prices which would likewise cause a political backlash.
It would self correct. Situations don't self correct when you have special deals. Where one company gets to pay one rate and everyone else pays another. That isn't acceptable.
As to this favorable price for some companies idea being quite popular in some places. I know... and it is corruption. I'm saying the price has to be the same for everyone based on use. That is how I am defining what is and is not a reasonable price.
This is how spectrum should work everywhere. Have it work like the homestead act.
The concept being that the land is free or you buy it but ONLY if you actually do something with it. Actually acquiring the land requires living and working on the land for a certain number of years and putting it to some use. I believe the term at the time was "improving it". Build roads, put houses on it, build farms, etc. And you own the land.
Spectrum should work the same way in that to qualify for ownership or to maintain a lease on bandwidth you actually have to use it. It really should be first come first serve. And not just someone sending a beacon up there that beeps on a frequency every 10 minutes. Actually do something with it.
And if you stop doing something with it then you should lose the lease.
The whole thing should be regional as well. This doesn't apply to space communications so much as radio and cell towers and tv stations. But if I'm in rural Alaska for example... just to pick an extreme example... why would the FCC tell me to not broadcast on a frequency that no one uses? The fact that I'm not paying for it or that some other service bought the national rights to that frequency are besides the point. They in that context don't actually broadcast to that area. So... why do they have a lease to do it?
This is one of the bigger issues I have with the FCC in that it is very urban centric in its conception of policy and it is very inflexible as regards seeing that unused spectrum is returned to the "radio wave commons."
They should have done it with rats. They're using rats in Africa to verify malaria in patients. The rats can tell you instantly if someone has malaria where as the cell culture tests take so much time that it is often too late at that point.
The virtue of rats is that they're cheap. Some rats will work out and some will try but just be shitty at it. When you're training dogs the expense is such that you don't want to dispense with a failure. But if you're doing rats then who cares. It is so much cheaper that you can use second opinion rats. Get multiple samples and run them independently by several rats. If one rat fucks up it isn't a big deal.
... the irony of the Obama administration outsourcing the labor to fix the ACA website is all you need to know. At every level of government they're outsourcing their IT.
So I don't really want to hear from the US government on the jobs. They're doing everything in their power to fuck over anyone in the country that doesn't have a staff of lobbyists.
The stupid lameness filter is triggering for this post for no reason. If people can tell me what the algorithm has a problem with I would appreciate it. The error is very unhelpful and vague.
I posted my actual post to postbin which is what I do when slashdot decides it wants to be retarded.
yep. Death threats and bomb threats on the internet are bullshit so often that literally anything in your home is more likely to murder you than some punk on the internet.
The government already does oversee it. I'm just stopping them from fucking with right of way for no reason.
Everything after that naturally self assembles.
I am not setting specifications for how they will be eaten that are different from how the man will eat them if I just leave him be.
I understand the fat man. I know what he'll do.
The mean dog will bite. The rabbit will eat lettuce. The baby will cry for its bottle. And absent any opportunity to deny access arbitrarily the cities, counties, and states will come up with various ways of managing the conduit system. And none of them will be a problem ultimately so long as they don't bar right of way.
They can do it any way they like so long as they don't bar right of way. They can all pass their own laws. The city can pass one set of laws. The county can pass another. The state can pass yet another and they'll all be fine so long as they don't bar right of way for the cable.
They will charge some reasonable fee for access to the cable which will have to not be deemed by a court as barring access which is something I don't have to define. If the fee is to maintain the conduit that is one thing. If you set a fee of a billion dollars for one person and free for someone else then you're clearly using the prices to exclude people from the conduit. I don't need to explain that in the law. The courts should have no trouble establishing that.
If baring right of way is forbidden then I don't need do more then that. I get what I want if right of way of cannot be denied.
Think of it like constitutional rights. I don't have to explain in 1776 why people are allowed to write blogs about politicians. I just have to say that the government is not allowed to restrict free speech. End of discussion. Its easy. And everything I want follows naturally from that prohibition.
The government in my case only needs to be forbidden from denying right of way in the conduits and polls. That's all I need.
So does my lack of vote which means my vote isn't what gives them that authority but the power to act. Which means the justification is power.
And since power is the justification, I can counter it with power. Just as one army's right to rule the land is countered by another army's refusal to submit. And the argument such as it is will be decided by whether the first army can dislodge the second.
In this context, they're presuming the ability to come find someone in the deep web, crack through all the VPNs, and trace things back through all the anonymizing protocols.
It took them how many years to get ONE guy running the Silk Road? Exactly how do they think they're going to track down enough people to actually create a credible climate of fear of prosecution?
The instant they actually start trying everything is going to go to VPNs and Tor.
So as I said... they've apparently learned nothing.
As to the EPA not acting using valid science or having its information open for court audit in the event that there is a discovery phase for their study in a court case... that is due process.
The EPA is already directed to use science and all the stipulation for repeatable science is... is a requirement that the science be science.
And as to having the data... if I can't get access to it or it is difficult to get it in a court case then your lack of evidence frustrates the due process of a court case.
What you need to understand is that from my perspective, these attributes are required for due process in this situation.
If I sue a corporation, then I need to be able to subpoena information from that corporation to help prove my case. I don't want to file a bunch of FoIA requests to get something that should just be there.
You said something contradictory. You said "as it does not do Y, but does Y'" Y cannot both equal 1 and not equal 1 at the same time.
This is the sort of logical confusion I've been seeing in these posts the entire time. I see a lot of ad hominem, a lot of self contradiction, and a lot of logical confusion.
From my perspective this just looks like an error in reasoning. A mistake of thought... not solving the equation properly. And as a result... I don't see these things as opinions so much as "wrong". That might appear arrogant to you but I don't hold that position because I think I'm better than you. I hold it because if someone says 1+1=5 they're just wrong. That's not an opinion. Its logic and math.
So.
Please define your variables and proofread them a bit. I'm sure you made some typo or something when you said Y was something and not something at the same time. I don't really know what you're talking about unless you define your variables.
I'll show you what I mean:
What I see is people saying this law X is bad because Republicans Y want to do it. I am seeing no Z variable in anything people are talking about. The logic is extremely simplistic from what I've seen and textbook fallacious.
As to seeing your equations... stating X, Y, and Z doesn't do anything if you don't define them. I inherently define them if you just present the argument. But if you don't present your argument and just drop letters then all I see are letters.
As to not seeing pot holes, do you live in a part of the world where it rains with any frequency? Because if you have weather and your roads are well tended, then congratulations. Your government isn't stealing road money to fund bullshit.
In the US, our gas tax money is taken from roads which is what it is supposed to be spent on... and is instead spent on any fucking thing the politicians want to spend it on instead. With the inevitable result that the fucking roads fall apart.
You have to keep in mind that there is a lot of corruption in the US government. Its both parties and at all levels. Its not the sort of corruption usually where if you pay me and I'll look the other way so much as "I have all this power and no one pays attention to anything I do... so I'm going to literally jerk off on all the office machines and then maybe put my ex wife on a no fly list... and maybe go through the spy database for some nefarious reason." It is complicated, frequently extremely petty, and rampant.
As to labor and permits to lay some fiber in a conduit. The labor is nominal. My uncle could personally do it all by himself without a lot of trouble and as to permits you're closer to the mark with that point. Cities and counties are often unreasonable about granting permits for things they really should just rubber stamp. Still, the big ISPs don't have trouble getting things rubber stamped. So that's not it either.
The thing is they don't care. They have a monopoly. They don't have to do a good job because you don't have a choice. They could be and frequently are terrible at their jobs. But so what? What are you going to do about it?
All I'm saying, is that I want a recourse. I want to be able to bypass them if they're doing a shitty job.
Telstra was a government telephone monopoly and Optus was apparently created by the government/allowed to come into existence as a competitor to Telstra.
Already this is sounding like a political circle jerk.
These are apparently government entities that were privatized. I should note that in my experience privatized entities never fully privatize or at least don't do so as quickly as you'd think. They often have extensive government ties for decades with associated political connections.
That is the case in the US and I simply assume it is everywhere. I could be wrong but it seems extremely unlikely especially since we're talking about big monopolies.
I can see from the wiki that they were laying competing cable however I don't see any information on that being a problem.
As to whether I'm adding or removing laws. If I removed the laws that are the problem and prohibited their reinstatement, my other needs on this matter should self realize naturally as the only alternative.
if they can't bar right of way for cable laying then exactly how could they possibly run the system besides the way I have laid out?
The instant you stop them from forbidding rival companies from laying cable the consequences are a foregone conclusion.
Its like leaving a fat guy alone with a box full of cookies. I don't have to tell him to eat them or in what order he is to eat them or that he has to open the box and take the cookies out rather then just eat the whole box cardboard and all.
I don't have to specify these things unless someone like you starts asking a lot of obtuse questions.
... no not the people trolling, the idiots can't handle trolls. People need to grow up and stop acting like thin skinned children.
Or get the fuck off the internet.
This service requires you actively pay attention to it. If you say something about me on this service, I won't know because I'm not on it. And if I were, I wouldn't give a shit.
I feel like there are three main groups here.
A group of older people that don't really understand the internet.
A group of pity/victim/issues trolls that really just thrive on any situation where they can pretend they're in need of protection.
And basically a lot of people laughing at the first two groups.
Now am I being callus and dismissive of their feelings? Yep. Everyone learns at some point that you can't be a whiny cry baby about everything or you're known as the whiny cry baby. So you toughen up and learn to be more of an adult. Its part of growing up.
Sadly, some people just learn how to more effectively be whiny cry babies. And listening to them and giving them credibility they don't merit merely enables their imature behavior.
Am I saying making death threats online is acceptable behavior? Nope... it is however inevitable. I've been getting death threats for ages.
Want to guess how many of them I took seriously? If you guessed zero then you're on target. I typically dare the little idiots to try it.
Threats on the internet are part of the background radiation of this place. I don't take them seriously because they don't translate into ACTUAL physical harm. The statistics on how many threats on the internet actually lead to any kind of real violence are so inconsequential as to be irrelevant.
Let me be clear, I fear my bathtub is more likely to kill me then anyone on the internet even if I was dumb enough to let them have my address.
Anywho, some pathetic dupe is going to respond that I'm not being appropriately sensitive to asshats complaining about things that won't happen. Allow me to assert even before you say a word that I disagree. I think it is our credence of their unjustified fears and coddling of their immature emotional states that creates this situation.
When someone starts with this sort of nonsense... every part of me cries out to slap them in the face. Not to hurt them. Just to stop them from acting like hysterical children. No, I do not favor hitting children. No I do not favor hitting women. I do however favor slapping people that are of adult age acting like children when they know better.
explain to me what happened in Australia. Give me enough information that I can research it myself.
There was an attempt to deregulate power generation in California. Not distribution but generation. And the process was sabotaged by politicians. They basically refused to sign long term contracts and bought power exclusively on last minute contracts. Power if sold by the last minute is dramatically more expensive then long term contract power.
Ideally what you want to do is buy more contract power then you need. And then buy instant power when you're occasionally wrong. The instant power even if it is only 2 percent of the full load can sometimes be more expensive than the the other 98 percent combined. So buying power in this manner turned out to be idiotic.
The local politicians in California said that "deregulation" was to blame for the failure of the system and used that as an argument to re-regulate it. When in fact, the failure was caused by regulations that forbid the grid from buying long term power contracts.
So when you say something like this failed in south Australia... I want details... because politicians are frequently fuck ups and when they fuck up they lie about it.
2. No, roads have to interlink generally with the exception of highways which still frequently interlink and they are the analog in the road system of the backbone. So that's just wrong.
As to pot holes, I said when was the last time you a pot hole on a private toll road? Obviously the public roads have pot holes all over the place. That was the point.
Electricity
1) I understand and I don't agree because while I don't need a 100 gigawatts to my house I would like a gigabit. And your system won't give me that. So fuck that model.
4) As to the amount your power is met in australia, the point is that it is. You can't say the same thing for communications. They're not comparable. Stop comparing them.
Factory
1. You're changing the context of the discussion. That's fine.
At this point I'm just going to call all analogies void. Make an argument without an analogy. I've lost patience with that rhetorical device. It requires respect and reasonableness to have value in a discussion. I feel like you're arguing more because you want to be right rather than trying to make any sense. And so for the sake of argument... I'm not going to listen to analogies anymore.
talk data.
Two miles of fiber costs about 2000 dollars. Explain to me why that is so expensive that you can't run multiple lines?
Data please. No more analogies.
As to putting government in charge of last mile delivery... more terrible ideas. Why would you think they were competent at that? they fuck up practically everything they're handed.
They fuck up the public schools. They can't run a police force without shooting innocent people. The roads have pot holes everywhere, etc etc.
Why would I give them more authority? They're serial fuck ups that respond to incompetence in their ranks by promoting incompetent people out of critical areas into leadership roles where more competent people are left taking orders from increasingly stupid people.
Slashdot Mirror
As to hating the FCC... well, that's quite likely regardless. I'm not inclined to see such organizations as necessary evils. And only to the extent they're actually necessary. When they do something that doesn't actually need to be done they just become straight evils... no hyphen.
As to it taking ten years to get Constellation up... do they need to know what frequency they'll be using NOW? Can't they just know roughly what range they'll have and then get more specific when they're closer to launch? Changing the frequency a prototype is going to use isn't a big deal.
its a big deal when you're about to launch the first wave. And from that point to them being in the air... 4 years seems well beyond any reasonable amount of time.
As to other reasons, I've looked into about 20 different agreements that gave a given ISP exclusive access and I haven't found one of them that didn't have a substantial bribe of some kind happening.
So, I'm sure the local governments will find an appropriate fig leaf to hang on it but that doesn't mean I have to pretend there isn't a cock behind it.
As to the law defining what the right of way means... the local governments can do that and the courts can have some cases that hammer it home. I'm not especially concerned with it if they're forbidden to screw with it.
All you're saying is that some places will try to use loopholes to not comply with the law. That's fine. I'll wait for them to do that and then sue them for it.
The courts are quite capable of judging things without having everything spelled out to the nth degree.
And really, I don't know why you're harping on that point. It has nothing to do with anything.
Lets say for the sake of argument that i do have to pass some 10,000 page fucking retarded legal document just to explain to idiots what providing right of way means?
Okay... so your argument is our society is so fucking stupid and corrupt that the justice system has to have everything spelled out.
I can't just say "you're not allowed to murder" someone. I have to say, "you're not allowed to murder them with a knife, a sword, a rock, a number 2 pencil, a weed whacker, an enraged badger..."... carried on to infinity.
Whatever.
As to hand waving, we disagree. Detailed legal codes that spell everything out are not required by the prohibition. You can LOCALLY write all the laws you want on the issue so long as you don't interfere with the right of way. Locally, I expect them to have lots of pages of legal verbiage. That's fine. they have a right to manage things as seems reasonable to them so long as they don't interfere with the right of way.
As to people lying in court proving that judges are incompetent to judge. I grant a lot of judges are incompetent and we might want to change the way legal precedence works so that we don't get legal creep.
One of the great joys I've come across are private arbitration courts. They're basically courts as they were before generations of judges so horribly polluted the system that very simple concepts became complicated.
In an arbitration court, the nature of the cases is often very simple. You often don't need a lawyer. The resolution of the cases tends to be very fast. And the level of satisfaction that most people report from such courts tends to be higher.
They're far cheaper, far more simple, far faster, and because there is less legal bullshit getting in the way people walk away from the cases more often feeling like understood what happened.
In a lot of ways, the US legal system could profit by resetting to something like where current arbitration courts are now. Amongst other things the US legal system could actually handle their current case load.
In Los Angeles, they have a backlog of cases for 4 to 5 years for some civil cases before they'll even hear your case because their case load is THAT backed up. And despite that, they're closing court houses because they don't have the money even with a 4 to 5 year backlog.
Of all the places to cut funding... the court system is one of the most dangerous. And a more reasonable solution rather than just saying "fuck you" to everyone that has a pending lawsuit, would be to simplify the process such that it was closer to its more streamlined self of about 100 years ago. Court cases used to go much faster with far less nonsense.
I'm not asking for due process to be circumvented at any point. I am simply pointing out that you can't just progressively make something more and more elaborate while retaining a minimum level of efficiency. If you don't have that efficiency then the court system itself doesn't work.
When you have a case backlog of 4 to 5 years... its broken. I don't want to wait for my day in court for more than a month at most. If your backlog is more than a month... then something is broken. You either need to increase judges/court houses to meet demand or you need to speed up the rate at which each judge deals with a case.
Either/or.
No, its that they are doing it already in africa and they're cheaper... and their noses are often a lot better than most dog breeds.
So... doing it with dogs is more expensive, likely less effective, and less viable for redundancy and error checking.
So... its sub optimal.
Its sensible. It encourages maximum exploitation. That is the point of regulations like that.
That was the point of the homestead act. They wanted to settle vast stretches of land IMMEDIATELY. That meant offering it basically for free. Anyone that went out there willing to work could within 5 years own a big stretch of land. The big finance interests couldn't just buy it all because they were required to actually develop it. Such interests are rarely capable of actually doing that enmass. They can develop something. But if given a chance they'll try to buy it all and then develop it slowly.
That is one of the problems with the way cellphone spectrum is sold. It shouldn't just be sold to three companies. It should be closer to wifi in that anyone can set it up. HOWEVER, you do require them to interlink their systems, allow rival users to roam on their network, etc. There is more than enough spectrum for everyone.
We don't need 3 companies owning all the spectrum It is absurd. The leases on spectrum should be specific to the region like conventional radio stations. If I lease a bit of spectrum in Florida for a radio station, I don't own that same frequency in California. I don't even own it in all of Florida.
Force the FCC to sell the cellphone spectrum piecemeal. In little 5 or 10 square mile zones. And require that they actually use it to maintain the lease.
What is more, if cell phone coverage in my area is shit, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to put a cell tower literally at my house that operates as a completely normal cell phone tower. Not only would I get great coverage there but all my neighbors would suddenly get good coverage as well.
Yes require me to get a license and a lease from the FCC etc. that's fine. Just make it something that a person can actually do... legally. The technology will take care of itself.
I've seen some DIY cell tower kits that cost no more than a couple thousand dollars. That's chump change. Link it into a respectable internet connection and you've got a cell tower.
The point is not to get money. The point is for people to not have leases they're not using.
When they did the homestead act, the point was not to raise money. the point was to rapidly settle and exploit large tracts of land.
That is my attitude towards the spectrum. I want it saturated. It want it used everywhere. Not owned everywhere. I want it used everywhere.
That means in low demand areas spectrum should be either given away for free or sold at a very low price.
In high demand areas you can sell it to the highest bidder that will ACTUALLY use it. If you're not ACTUALLY PERSONALLY going to use the spectrum then get the fuck out of the auction hall before I order an officer to mace you just for contempt.
vast swaths of the spectrum go unused because they're owned by people that don't use them. You should lose your lease if you do that. I don't care if you paid for it. The terms of the lease should be ACTUALLY using it.
The point of the FCC was not to generate revenue but rather to organize and civilize the use of radio spectrum. Ideally we should have 100 percent saturation with every frequency being used by someone.
In the case of very urban areas, it is going to make sense to let people bid those frequencies up so that more valuable uses of the frequency take a preeminent position. However, in areas that are less built up... suburban or rural areas... you should have so much open bandwidth that people can run their own 4G networks for example if there is room for it.
By all means have them integrate with the the national regs so that anyone with a 4G modem can link to it so long as they pay the roaming fees. I think most people that set up such a thing would be quite happy to operate under those conditions.
And you'd FULL national 4G coverage if you did that.
Which isn't so much of a big deal in urban areas that take that for granted. But you could have rural areas where their only broad band option would be something of that nature. If it is hosted by company in their own community for their own community... the rates might be reasonable and the maintenance expenses of a few 4G broadcast towers versus running fiber up every dirt road for 20 miles in every direction is no comparison.
I'm not the only one that understands:
http://www.technologyreview.co...
The issue is the right of way.
What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a company or individual to exploit a frequency? A year? Two years?
And then of course there is losing the rights if you don't broadcast there. The warm up and cool down time should be similar.
I think two years of warm up time is the most I would give anyone. If you can't go live within 2 years then I don't want to give you rights to spectrum. I might be willing to make exceptions for really extraordinary projects like Musk's. But what am I offering then? Three years? Four? Four seems right on the edge of excessive even under extraordinary circumstances. If you can't go live in four years then I'm not giving you a lease.
And what is more with stuff like that, if you need four years because you're not going to go live until then... then I see no reason why people can't use that spectrum until then. So when you're project finally goes live they might have to get out of the way. But until then... who cares what they're doing because you're not using it.
Most of my stipulations refer to terrestrial use however. In rural communities especially they could have broadband internet served rather cheaply using unused radio frequencies. No need to run fiber. Just put up a broadcast tower and there is plenty of spectrum to serve the 500 people in the area with high speed internet.
You could even stretch that radically by using high directional broadcasts.
I saw something from a company called "air fiber" which boasted something like 3 gigabits at 10 miles. I could be getting the numbers wrong. The point is that it was a lot of bandwidth that could be pushed over a long distance without hurting anyone.
The FCC should make a point of getting out of the way of that stuff and not treating every part of the country like it is a major city with locally congested airwaves.
And a failed diagnostic rat costs a fraction of that money to train and if it fails you neither feel bad nor are especially judged for flushing it or feeding it to a hungry snake.
Their current reason is because they got paid by the big ISP.
In any case, you know what I mean and you're just being obtuse. So I'm going to skip over similar references.
As to the fat man leaving crumbs behind, you can do whatever you feel is reasonable to control crumbs or whatever analogy works for you. So long as you don't fuck with right of way in the conduit... do what you like. I'll leave that up to your city or county or state.
If you fuck with right of way under this provision you will be in violation of the prohibition on fucking with right of way and you'll get sued and forced by court order to stop doing that. But whatever you do that doesn't fuck with right of way... go for it.
What exactly do you think you're going to do that I'm going to care about? You say I can't stop you from fucking with the right of way... but that's what that prohibition would do. You would be unable to pass any law or regulation or policy or edict or writ or executive order that would interfere with the right of way in the conduit.
As to federal, state, and what constitutes baring the right of way... not really. I'm happy to leave that to the courts. I suspect idiots will try to pass laws that make that complicated but then the courts are typically quite happy to slap down stupid laws that are in violation of other laws. As to the fed versus state thing... depends. They have limited powers within their domains. Most growth in federal power over states has recently come via bribery and extortion not legal authority. That is "you do this thing the federal government wants and you'll get money. If you don't then we'll still take your state to pay for it but you won't get anything". That's how the ACA worked. And it is how common core program worked. And it is how the school lunch program worked. And there really is an endless list of these. Its just bribery. You do this and you get money. If you don't you get taxed anyway and get nothing. So most states cave to it.
Its a flaw in the constitution. The feds shouldn't be able to do that. If a state opts out of a voluntary program then their citizens shouldn't be taxed to support it. Reduce taxes by whatever the percentage is in those states. Then if the state itself wants to provide that service they can raise their own taxes by that amount and self fund a similar project but entirely under their own control.
As to defining what constitutes reasonable fees, my only requirement here actually is that everyone pay the same fee for the same amount of space and distance they travel in the system. If the big ISP runs cable through 1000 times as much conduit space as my little local ISP, I expect them to pay 1000 times more in conduit fees. If the fees are proportional to use and the rates paid are equal indifferent to which company is using them. I am happy enough with whatever the cities or states want to charge for conduit space.
The big ISPs will lobby to have those rates be as low and thus REASONABLE as possible. And in getting low rates for themselves they'll passively obtain low rates for everyone else.
It self corrects. I don't need to do anymore than require the fees be proportional and standardized in each area by that area. By all means, try to charge 1 million dollars per meter in a the conduit. That is of course not reasonable. But if every user of the system has to pay the same rate that fee will shut down all service in that area which would cause a political backlash that would correct the issue. Or it would raise prices which would likewise cause a political backlash.
It would self correct. Situations don't self correct when you have special deals. Where one company gets to pay one rate and everyone else pays another. That isn't acceptable.
As to this favorable price for some companies idea being quite popular in some places. I know... and it is corruption. I'm saying the price has to be the same for everyone based on use. That is how I am defining what is and is not a reasonable price.
Cities and states
This is how spectrum should work everywhere. Have it work like the homestead act.
The concept being that the land is free or you buy it but ONLY if you actually do something with it. Actually acquiring the land requires living and working on the land for a certain number of years and putting it to some use. I believe the term at the time was "improving it". Build roads, put houses on it, build farms, etc. And you own the land.
Spectrum should work the same way in that to qualify for ownership or to maintain a lease on bandwidth you actually have to use it. It really should be first come first serve. And not just someone sending a beacon up there that beeps on a frequency every 10 minutes. Actually do something with it.
And if you stop doing something with it then you should lose the lease.
The whole thing should be regional as well. This doesn't apply to space communications so much as radio and cell towers and tv stations. But if I'm in rural Alaska for example... just to pick an extreme example... why would the FCC tell me to not broadcast on a frequency that no one uses? The fact that I'm not paying for it or that some other service bought the national rights to that frequency are besides the point. They in that context don't actually broadcast to that area. So... why do they have a lease to do it?
This is one of the bigger issues I have with the FCC in that it is very urban centric in its conception of policy and it is very inflexible as regards seeing that unused spectrum is returned to the "radio wave commons."
They should have done it with rats. They're using rats in Africa to verify malaria in patients. The rats can tell you instantly if someone has malaria where as the cell culture tests take so much time that it is often too late at that point.
The virtue of rats is that they're cheap. Some rats will work out and some will try but just be shitty at it. When you're training dogs the expense is such that you don't want to dispense with a failure. But if you're doing rats then who cares. It is so much cheaper that you can use second opinion rats. Get multiple samples and run them independently by several rats. If one rat fucks up it isn't a big deal.
... the irony of the Obama administration outsourcing the labor to fix the ACA website is all you need to know. At every level of government they're outsourcing their IT.
So I don't really want to hear from the US government on the jobs. They're doing everything in their power to fuck over anyone in the country that doesn't have a staff of lobbyists.
The stupid lameness filter is triggering for this post for no reason. If people can tell me what the algorithm has a problem with I would appreciate it. The error is very unhelpful and vague.
I posted my actual post to postbin which is what I do when slashdot decides it wants to be retarded.
http://pastebin.com/v4ApP6H2
yep. Death threats and bomb threats on the internet are bullshit so often that literally anything in your home is more likely to murder you than some punk on the internet.
The government already does oversee it. I'm just stopping them from fucking with right of way for no reason.
Everything after that naturally self assembles.
I am not setting specifications for how they will be eaten that are different from how the man will eat them if I just leave him be.
I understand the fat man. I know what he'll do.
The mean dog will bite. The rabbit will eat lettuce. The baby will cry for its bottle. And absent any opportunity to deny access arbitrarily the cities, counties, and states will come up with various ways of managing the conduit system. And none of them will be a problem ultimately so long as they don't bar right of way.
They can do it any way they like so long as they don't bar right of way. They can all pass their own laws. The city can pass one set of laws. The county can pass another. The state can pass yet another and they'll all be fine so long as they don't bar right of way for the cable.
They will charge some reasonable fee for access to the cable which will have to not be deemed by a court as barring access which is something I don't have to define. If the fee is to maintain the conduit that is one thing. If you set a fee of a billion dollars for one person and free for someone else then you're clearly using the prices to exclude people from the conduit. I don't need to explain that in the law. The courts should have no trouble establishing that.
If baring right of way is forbidden then I don't need do more then that. I get what I want if right of way of cannot be denied.
Think of it like constitutional rights. I don't have to explain in 1776 why people are allowed to write blogs about politicians. I just have to say that the government is not allowed to restrict free speech. End of discussion. Its easy. And everything I want follows naturally from that prohibition.
The government in my case only needs to be forbidden from denying right of way in the conduits and polls. That's all I need.
So does my lack of vote which means my vote isn't what gives them that authority but the power to act. Which means the justification is power.
And since power is the justification, I can counter it with power. Just as one army's right to rule the land is countered by another army's refusal to submit. And the argument such as it is will be decided by whether the first army can dislodge the second.
In this context, they're presuming the ability to come find someone in the deep web, crack through all the VPNs, and trace things back through all the anonymizing protocols.
It took them how many years to get ONE guy running the Silk Road? Exactly how do they think they're going to track down enough people to actually create a credible climate of fear of prosecution?
The instant they actually start trying everything is going to go to VPNs and Tor.
So as I said... they've apparently learned nothing.
OR they need to work with each other like reasonable people.
But yeah, if they refuse to do that then they should kill each other.
As to the EPA not acting using valid science or having its information open for court audit in the event that there is a discovery phase for their study in a court case... that is due process.
The EPA is already directed to use science and all the stipulation for repeatable science is... is a requirement that the science be science.
And as to having the data... if I can't get access to it or it is difficult to get it in a court case then your lack of evidence frustrates the due process of a court case.
What you need to understand is that from my perspective, these attributes are required for due process in this situation.
If I sue a corporation, then I need to be able to subpoena information from that corporation to help prove my case. I don't want to file a bunch of FoIA requests to get something that should just be there.
You said something contradictory. You said "as it does not do Y, but does Y'" Y cannot both equal 1 and not equal 1 at the same time.
This is the sort of logical confusion I've been seeing in these posts the entire time. I see a lot of ad hominem, a lot of self contradiction, and a lot of logical confusion.
From my perspective this just looks like an error in reasoning. A mistake of thought... not solving the equation properly. And as a result... I don't see these things as opinions so much as "wrong". That might appear arrogant to you but I don't hold that position because I think I'm better than you. I hold it because if someone says 1+1=5 they're just wrong. That's not an opinion. Its logic and math.
So.
Please define your variables and proofread them a bit. I'm sure you made some typo or something when you said Y was something and not something at the same time. I don't really know what you're talking about unless you define your variables.
I'll show you what I mean:
What I see is people saying this law X is bad because Republicans Y want to do it. I am seeing no Z variable in anything people are talking about. The logic is extremely simplistic from what I've seen and textbook fallacious.
As to seeing your equations... stating X, Y, and Z doesn't do anything if you don't define them. I inherently define them if you just present the argument. But if you don't present your argument and just drop letters then all I see are letters.
As to not seeing pot holes, do you live in a part of the world where it rains with any frequency? Because if you have weather and your roads are well tended, then congratulations. Your government isn't stealing road money to fund bullshit.
In the US, our gas tax money is taken from roads which is what it is supposed to be spent on... and is instead spent on any fucking thing the politicians want to spend it on instead. With the inevitable result that the fucking roads fall apart.
You have to keep in mind that there is a lot of corruption in the US government. Its both parties and at all levels. Its not the sort of corruption usually where if you pay me and I'll look the other way so much as "I have all this power and no one pays attention to anything I do... so I'm going to literally jerk off on all the office machines and then maybe put my ex wife on a no fly list... and maybe go through the spy database for some nefarious reason." It is complicated, frequently extremely petty, and rampant.
As to labor and permits to lay some fiber in a conduit. The labor is nominal. My uncle could personally do it all by himself without a lot of trouble and as to permits you're closer to the mark with that point. Cities and counties are often unreasonable about granting permits for things they really should just rubber stamp. Still, the big ISPs don't have trouble getting things rubber stamped. So that's not it either.
The thing is they don't care. They have a monopoly. They don't have to do a good job because you don't have a choice. They could be and frequently are terrible at their jobs. But so what? What are you going to do about it?
All I'm saying, is that I want a recourse. I want to be able to bypass them if they're doing a shitty job.
reading the wikipedia entry on Optus
Telstra was a government telephone monopoly and Optus was apparently created by the government/allowed to come into existence as a competitor to Telstra.
Already this is sounding like a political circle jerk.
These are apparently government entities that were privatized. I should note that in my experience privatized entities never fully privatize or at least don't do so as quickly as you'd think. They often have extensive government ties for decades with associated political connections.
That is the case in the US and I simply assume it is everywhere. I could be wrong but it seems extremely unlikely especially since we're talking about big monopolies.
I can see from the wiki that they were laying competing cable however I don't see any information on that being a problem.
As to whether I'm adding or removing laws. If I removed the laws that are the problem and prohibited their reinstatement, my other needs on this matter should self realize naturally as the only alternative.
if they can't bar right of way for cable laying then exactly how could they possibly run the system besides the way I have laid out?
The instant you stop them from forbidding rival companies from laying cable the consequences are a foregone conclusion.
Its like leaving a fat guy alone with a box full of cookies. I don't have to tell him to eat them or in what order he is to eat them or that he has to open the box and take the cookies out rather then just eat the whole box cardboard and all.
I don't have to specify these things unless someone like you starts asking a lot of obtuse questions.
... no not the people trolling, the idiots can't handle trolls. People need to grow up and stop acting like thin skinned children.
Or get the fuck off the internet.
This service requires you actively pay attention to it. If you say something about me on this service, I won't know because I'm not on it. And if I were, I wouldn't give a shit.
I feel like there are three main groups here.
A group of older people that don't really understand the internet.
A group of pity/victim/issues trolls that really just thrive on any situation where they can pretend they're in need of protection.
And basically a lot of people laughing at the first two groups.
Now am I being callus and dismissive of their feelings? Yep. Everyone learns at some point that you can't be a whiny cry baby about everything or you're known as the whiny cry baby. So you toughen up and learn to be more of an adult. Its part of growing up.
Sadly, some people just learn how to more effectively be whiny cry babies. And listening to them and giving them credibility they don't merit merely enables their imature behavior.
Am I saying making death threats online is acceptable behavior? Nope... it is however inevitable. I've been getting death threats for ages.
Want to guess how many of them I took seriously? If you guessed zero then you're on target. I typically dare the little idiots to try it.
Threats on the internet are part of the background radiation of this place. I don't take them seriously because they don't translate into ACTUAL physical harm. The statistics on how many threats on the internet actually lead to any kind of real violence are so inconsequential as to be irrelevant.
Let me be clear, I fear my bathtub is more likely to kill me then anyone on the internet even if I was dumb enough to let them have my address.
Anywho, some pathetic dupe is going to respond that I'm not being appropriately sensitive to asshats complaining about things that won't happen. Allow me to assert even before you say a word that I disagree. I think it is our credence of their unjustified fears and coddling of their immature emotional states that creates this situation.
When someone starts with this sort of nonsense... every part of me cries out to slap them in the face. Not to hurt them. Just to stop them from acting like hysterical children. No, I do not favor hitting children. No I do not favor hitting women. I do however favor slapping people that are of adult age acting like children when they know better.
Grow the fuck up.
Right now you might not see the value of your open source project.
But any moment the company could change policy or stop developing it. And when that happens you'll be there.
explain to me what happened in Australia. Give me enough information that I can research it myself.
There was an attempt to deregulate power generation in California. Not distribution but generation. And the process was sabotaged by politicians. They basically refused to sign long term contracts and bought power exclusively on last minute contracts. Power if sold by the last minute is dramatically more expensive then long term contract power.
Ideally what you want to do is buy more contract power then you need. And then buy instant power when you're occasionally wrong. The instant power even if it is only 2 percent of the full load can sometimes be more expensive than the the other 98 percent combined. So buying power in this manner turned out to be idiotic.
The local politicians in California said that "deregulation" was to blame for the failure of the system and used that as an argument to re-regulate it. When in fact, the failure was caused by regulations that forbid the grid from buying long term power contracts.
So when you say something like this failed in south Australia... I want details... because politicians are frequently fuck ups and when they fuck up they lie about it.
On roads
2. No, roads have to interlink generally with the exception of highways which still frequently interlink and they are the analog in the road system of the backbone. So that's just wrong.
As to pot holes, I said when was the last time you a pot hole on a private toll road? Obviously the public roads have pot holes all over the place. That was the point.
Electricity
1) I understand and I don't agree because while I don't need a 100 gigawatts to my house I would like a gigabit. And your system won't give me that. So fuck that model.
4) As to the amount your power is met in australia, the point is that it is. You can't say the same thing for communications. They're not comparable. Stop comparing them.
Factory
1. You're changing the context of the discussion. That's fine.
At this point I'm just going to call all analogies void. Make an argument without an analogy. I've lost patience with that rhetorical device. It requires respect and reasonableness to have value in a discussion. I feel like you're arguing more because you want to be right rather than trying to make any sense. And so for the sake of argument... I'm not going to listen to analogies anymore.
talk data.
Two miles of fiber costs about 2000 dollars. Explain to me why that is so expensive that you can't run multiple lines?
Data please. No more analogies.
As to putting government in charge of last mile delivery... more terrible ideas. Why would you think they were competent at that? they fuck up practically everything they're handed.
They fuck up the public schools. They can't run a police force without shooting innocent people. The roads have pot holes everywhere, etc etc.
Why would I give them more authority? They're serial fuck ups that respond to incompetence in their ranks by promoting incompetent people out of critical areas into leadership roles where more competent people are left taking orders from increasingly stupid people.
So no. Fuck that idea.