I'd love to see Obama do that... the shock of all the republicans suddenly giving him everything he wants would be pretty priceless.
Republicans aren't opposing obama because he is obama... they are opposing him because they do not like his policies.
Suggesting otherwise ignores that republican policies on these matters haven't changed remarkably in decades which is long before Obama was even alive much less in politics.
I'm afraid that is just the cognitive dissonce talking.
Obama likes to say that people only disagree with him because he's black or something equally offensive. But if anyone else were in his position doing what he's doing then the same political factions would be opposing him.
Republicans for example has been opposing moves like Obamacare for well over 60 years. Yet Obama suggests that republicans are only taking this position out of racism. It is intellectually unsupportable.
Who said anything about redoing the cabling every time you change providers you complete fucking retard? That is a CFR by the way.:D
The only cabling that would need to be redone would be at your house where in one cable was unplugged and another was plugged in instead. OH NOES! It might take all of 10 minutes! RUN AND HIDE!!! THE HUMANITY!!! AAAAHHHH!!!
Seriously though... what the fuck do you think you're talking about. If I have a bundle of cables going through a street conduit or over on a pole... and I need to switch from one cable to another... why are you presuming any of this would be hard, time consuming, or messy?
I'll give a simple example of an office building. There is a utility room in most office buildings where most of these things are routed. Often they'll have more then one but lets just go with a simple example of one utility room. In that room, you have communications and power lines coming into the room and then those have to be routed to specific rooms or even jacks. All of this is labeled on the panel. Changing from one provider to another would require moving some of these wires around. Which is precisely what they do already when you add a service or change a service. Nothing here is really changing from a wiring perspective.
Going through the streets, you have a similar situation. ISPs already play with the cable as it is... they'll continue to do that. It doesn't need to be relaid every time you change service. I never implied that, never suggested that, and that is not my argument.
Baseless insults by anonymous cowards... You wound me, sir.
If you presume to judge me, then actually form a falsifiable argument and do me the small courtesy of using your real FAKE name. I'm not asking for your actual name on your driver's license. But your handle on this board would be the least you can offer given I am offering that myself.
As to regulation being required for competition... yes, but the regulation required is that companies do not literally commit acts of violence, contracts are honored, and advertizing is reasonably faithful to the actual product.
Which is something we have for every company already.
The issue with ISPs is not lack of regulation but too much regulation. Again, at the local level. It is almost impossible to lay last mile cable.
That is the issue.
Make that easy from a regulatory stand point and this issue will go away.
You cannot justify regulation because we have too much regulation.
What the scientists are saying is that the droughts they're seeing do not appear to be unusual. They appear to be totally normal, predictable, and unmodified weather patterns.
If you want to blame these droughts on AGW then you might as well blame summer on AGW and winter on global cooling.
You cannot blame such weather patterns on AGW while retaining credibility. Choose.
Do you want to blame them on that or retain credibility?
Think of an ecology... take energy or nutrition out of that ecology... now lets say you're eating 30 to 50 percent of all energy and nutrition in that ecology.
Are you going to imply that that has no impact on the populations and growth trends in that ecology? Come now.
You take money out of the system and you took money out of the system.
It is the folly of the Marxists to think they can rob peter to pay paul without pissing off peter.
The major benefits to the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else is largely due to no one but the 1 percent having capital investment in the system.
Going forward, it should be if anything easier for common people to have capital investment in the system because the system is going to decentralize.
Think of the advantage of having massive cheap automation. Do I need to have a big factory if I can pack my workers in boxes? No. I can have micro factories that are closer to consumers or resources because my manufacturing doesn't need to be near large concentrations of labor.
And if my factories are smaller then they become closer to what small and medium sized businesses could afford.
Imagine fully automated car making robots. Big 3d printers with assembly capability. Now imagine that because these printers can print most of their own parts that all this crap is relatively cheap.
Your job of the future might be owning your own car company that makes 10 or 20 cars a year.
Just a wild example of something that might happen. I can't see the future any more clearly then the fool that wrote the article.
The point is that people are assuming the industrial models we have today will remain the same. Why would they?
Think about what massive automation will do to all these industries? Suddenly a big factory can base itself in an isolated part of the country because it only needs a tiny fraction of the labor. And if it can, then it should because the land costs etc are lower out there. And if the labor really ceases to be an issue then the economies of scale change. Most economies are scale are based on labor density. If labor isn't relevant then you don't need to build densely and really since density has problems you shouldn't be dense.
65 percent of US households are already on some form of Federal welfare.
Exactly where do you want to go with that?
The American budget is already stressed far past the breaking point funding welfare programs.
As to the idea of "just pass higher taxes!" ignores that capital can very easily just leave the US. What happened when various groups decided to squeeze US manufacturing in the 1960s-70s? It worked for awhile and then they relocated to Asia.
The only growth in US manufacturing has been in areas hostile to the same political entities that like to squeeze industry. Thus proving that the industry could have stayed all along in the US had it not been fucked with in the first place.
Absent additional revenue streams which you must admit you cannot tap. The US welfare system is already over extended.
I'm sorry... you need to let some of this play out. Ignoring people like me and just doing whatever you want with the welfare leads to the country going the way of Venezuela. Last I heard, they were having a water shortage... in the middle of a jungle.
We may have different ways of seeing the world but do not presume I am stupid or insincere.
... I feel like you're not reading anything I've said but that I made a shoe analogy. Which is very frustrating.
*takes a deep breath*
*breaths out slowly*
The thesis I presented was that through greater competition these net neutrality issues would go away. Which means you're not just buying from one company but rather lots and lots of them. So my analogy holds. Please re-read/read for the first time my arguments above. I don't know if I can contain an outburst if you do that again.
Would you sacrifice the industrial revolution to make the lives of farmers easier?
it would be hypocrisy to shield myself from something I would not shield another from.
Have some courage and some character. The change will happen whether you want it to or not. You can either do what you can to protect yourself and your family or not.
4 isn't happening yet and shows no signs of happening any time soon.
As to what people will do? The people in stages 1-3 felt the same way you do and felt they were doomed in each segment.
Do you honestly think the farm workers thought the factories would save them? They went to them out of desperation... they lived hard, poorly paid, subsistence lives for at least a generation. Their children were forced into the factories just to eat.
But things got better. You don't see the way out because you're just starting to enter it. Might this be the end and the doom of us all? Possibly... I rather doubt it. But who knows.
My bloodline did not survive for hundreds of millions of years on this world by presuming I was going to die and giving up. I believe we will survive this and that we rise out of this better then before.
We tend to when we go through these changes. Ultimately they tend to be very positive. However, they are jarring to people unprepared for them.
Gird yourself for change. Do not become static or you will suffer.
I am pointing out that we have gone through this process many times in the past and it has always worked out the same way every single time.
So... yes... it might be painful. A generation or more might be under employed. But eventually it will sort itself out.
That is assuming the AI isn't superior to humans in all ways. In which case... it really depends on who controls the AI. Whomever has that control could effectively dictate the new social order. And given that the AI is superior in all ways... you'd be in no position to contest it. Terminator robots would slap you into compliance.
... over the short term jobs may be lost. They were after every previous advancement. But then the market found a place for the labor that was freed up in the process.
What happened to all the men that used to clear wheat fields? At one time over 80 percent of the labor force was concerned with agriculture. Today it is less then 5 percent. What happened to all those men? Do you think they got jobs immediately? Look back to the industrial revolution. Look at the starvation, poverty, etc. What was going on there? They didn't have work or had to take subsistence labor. It took a generation at least to adapt.
And then conditions improved as the labor force adapted to the new job market. Think back to the child labor... children working in the factories... they grew up in those places and they learned. These were people that in many cases had no experience with machines prior to that generation. They had tools on the farm but not what modern people would call machines.
The lessons are hard and painful sometimes but... necessary. We can't go back. Anyone that disagrees with me can go back to clearing wheat fields any time.
I won't go back.
The agricultural revolution ate the hunter gathers and fenced off their nomadic world. It took from them the only way they knew how to live. They could either take up farming or die.
The industrial revolution made the farms so efficient that only a tiny fraction of the population could make a living on them. The rest were forced into cities to work in the factories.
The information revolution is making the factories so efficient that only a tiny fraction of the population can make a living working in them. And the same is carrying through the rest of our labor market.
The question will be... what does the labor market of the future offer for the common person? I couldn't say. But it will be something. It is always something.
Flip that around. Competition itself ensures net neutrality. If I have five to a dozen ISPs to choose from at any location then why would I choose the ISP not offering net neutrality? It is the last mile providers that are dicking with the data. The backbone providers already embrace net neutrality.
The reason the last mile providers are dicking with the data is that they buy bandwidth just like their customers from an ISP in most cases. And that ISP links them to the global web. And the last mile ISP can make a little extra money by short changing some customers while being very careful to not interfere with the communications of clients that paid extra to be left alone.
If you have lots of last mile providers then every customer becomes important because the small customers have options and will leave you. Mistreat them and they're gone. Individually they're not very important, but collectively they're the most important.
As to mom and pop ISPs... there is no reason why an ISP couldn't be that small. The capital investment in equipment isn't a big deal. The primary reason we don't see this is that frequently ISPs are required to service an entire city if they service any part of it. That sort of outlay is not reasonable in most cases and well beyond the means of most businesses.
If you remove those restrictions, then the only expense is the actual cost of laying the cable, the actual cost of the equipment, and whatever the service fee is to link to the trunk line. All of which is easily affordable since the trunk contract would be on a bandwidth basis. If you're only linking a couple blocks then you only get charged for a couple blocks of bandwidth. Take whatever your operating costs are, double or triple that and pass it on the consumer.
Talk to the people in salt lake city. Google is offering magnitudes more bandwidth then the competition at the same price.
Right, because there is no other possible way to lay cable then the way they've always laid cable.
Or really do anything besides the way it was done before.
Which is why no one drives cars... because how do you put a saddle on a car?
Idiots like you shouldn't enter speculative discussions. You lack the imagination to see obvious solutions to simple problems.
Any place that had frequent changes to the cabling would either have an accessible conduit system or run the cables on poles.
In large cities, the conduit system would make the most sense. Most major cities already have versions of this in place thus requiring no change what so ever to existing models.
In small towns etc, they tend to run cables on poles and if there are only a dozen or so ISPs then they could all coexist on the same poles without a lot of trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Only reason it took this long is that the last few times castro caused diplomatic incidents.
I'd love to see Obama do that... the shock of all the republicans suddenly giving him everything he wants would be pretty priceless.
Republicans aren't opposing obama because he is obama... they are opposing him because they do not like his policies.
Suggesting otherwise ignores that republican policies on these matters haven't changed remarkably in decades which is long before Obama was even alive much less in politics.
I'm afraid that is just the cognitive dissonce talking.
Obama likes to say that people only disagree with him because he's black or something equally offensive. But if anyone else were in his position doing what he's doing then the same political factions would be opposing him.
Republicans for example has been opposing moves like Obamacare for well over 60 years. Yet Obama suggests that republicans are only taking this position out of racism. It is intellectually unsupportable.
The same is true of the FCC actions.
Who said anything about redoing the cabling every time you change providers you complete fucking retard? That is a CFR by the way. :D
The only cabling that would need to be redone would be at your house where in one cable was unplugged and another was plugged in instead. OH NOES! It might take all of 10 minutes! RUN AND HIDE!!! THE HUMANITY!!! AAAAHHHH!!!
Seriously though... what the fuck do you think you're talking about. If I have a bundle of cables going through a street conduit or over on a pole... and I need to switch from one cable to another... why are you presuming any of this would be hard, time consuming, or messy?
I'll give a simple example of an office building. There is a utility room in most office buildings where most of these things are routed. Often they'll have more then one but lets just go with a simple example of one utility room. In that room, you have communications and power lines coming into the room and then those have to be routed to specific rooms or even jacks. All of this is labeled on the panel. Changing from one provider to another would require moving some of these wires around. Which is precisely what they do already when you add a service or change a service. Nothing here is really changing from a wiring perspective.
Going through the streets, you have a similar situation. ISPs already play with the cable as it is... they'll continue to do that. It doesn't need to be relaid every time you change service. I never implied that, never suggested that, and that is not my argument.
Baseless insults by anonymous cowards... You wound me, sir.
If you presume to judge me, then actually form a falsifiable argument and do me the small courtesy of using your real FAKE name. I'm not asking for your actual name on your driver's license. But your handle on this board would be the least you can offer given I am offering that myself.
As to regulation being required for competition... yes, but the regulation required is that companies do not literally commit acts of violence, contracts are honored, and advertizing is reasonably faithful to the actual product.
Which is something we have for every company already.
The issue with ISPs is not lack of regulation but too much regulation. Again, at the local level. It is almost impossible to lay last mile cable.
That is the issue.
Make that easy from a regulatory stand point and this issue will go away.
You cannot justify regulation because we have too much regulation.
That just creates a feedback loop of stupidity.
Pointing out that the government has regulations on everything is not evidence that those regulations are required.
Actually, you're missing the point.
What the scientists are saying is that the droughts they're seeing do not appear to be unusual. They appear to be totally normal, predictable, and unmodified weather patterns.
If you want to blame these droughts on AGW then you might as well blame summer on AGW and winter on global cooling.
You cannot blame such weather patterns on AGW while retaining credibility. Choose.
Do you want to blame them on that or retain credibility?
Up to you.
Think of an ecology... take energy or nutrition out of that ecology... now lets say you're eating 30 to 50 percent of all energy and nutrition in that ecology.
Are you going to imply that that has no impact on the populations and growth trends in that ecology? Come now.
You take money out of the system and you took money out of the system.
It is the folly of the Marxists to think they can rob peter to pay paul without pissing off peter.
You should really know better by now.
The major benefits to the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else is largely due to no one but the 1 percent having capital investment in the system.
Going forward, it should be if anything easier for common people to have capital investment in the system because the system is going to decentralize.
Think of the advantage of having massive cheap automation. Do I need to have a big factory if I can pack my workers in boxes? No. I can have micro factories that are closer to consumers or resources because my manufacturing doesn't need to be near large concentrations of labor.
And if my factories are smaller then they become closer to what small and medium sized businesses could afford.
Imagine fully automated car making robots. Big 3d printers with assembly capability. Now imagine that because these printers can print most of their own parts that all this crap is relatively cheap.
Your job of the future might be owning your own car company that makes 10 or 20 cars a year.
Just a wild example of something that might happen. I can't see the future any more clearly then the fool that wrote the article.
The point is that people are assuming the industrial models we have today will remain the same. Why would they?
Think about what massive automation will do to all these industries? Suddenly a big factory can base itself in an isolated part of the country because it only needs a tiny fraction of the labor. And if it can, then it should because the land costs etc are lower out there. And if the labor really ceases to be an issue then the economies of scale change. Most economies are scale are based on labor density. If labor isn't relevant then you don't need to build densely and really since density has problems you shouldn't be dense.
Right, because modern American society is literally Dickensian... /s
fucktard.
More then the 1 percent go through these transitions gracefully. The middle class seems to do okay for example.
As to the very poor, we already have extensive welfare programs so I don't know what your problem is here.
65 percent of US households are already on some form of Federal welfare.
Exactly where do you want to go with that?
The American budget is already stressed far past the breaking point funding welfare programs.
As to the idea of "just pass higher taxes!" ignores that capital can very easily just leave the US. What happened when various groups decided to squeeze US manufacturing in the 1960s-70s? It worked for awhile and then they relocated to Asia.
The only growth in US manufacturing has been in areas hostile to the same political entities that like to squeeze industry. Thus proving that the industry could have stayed all along in the US had it not been fucked with in the first place.
Absent additional revenue streams which you must admit you cannot tap. The US welfare system is already over extended.
I'm sorry... you need to let some of this play out. Ignoring people like me and just doing whatever you want with the welfare leads to the country going the way of Venezuela. Last I heard, they were having a water shortage... in the middle of a jungle.
We may have different ways of seeing the world but do not presume I am stupid or insincere.
No more then you're advocating for totalitarian communism.
Your blind zealotry is counter productive and renders you incompetent in this or any other policy discussion.
Try again with less koolaid.
... I feel like you're not reading anything I've said but that I made a shoe analogy. Which is very frustrating.
*takes a deep breath*
*breaths out slowly*
The thesis I presented was that through greater competition these net neutrality issues would go away. Which means you're not just buying from one company but rather lots and lots of them. So my analogy holds. Please re-read/read for the first time my arguments above. I don't know if I can contain an outburst if you do that again.
Would you sacrifice the industrial revolution to make the lives of farmers easier?
it would be hypocrisy to shield myself from something I would not shield another from.
Have some courage and some character. The change will happen whether you want it to or not. You can either do what you can to protect yourself and your family or not.
But you can't stop it.
4 isn't happening yet and shows no signs of happening any time soon.
As to what people will do? The people in stages 1-3 felt the same way you do and felt they were doomed in each segment.
Do you honestly think the farm workers thought the factories would save them? They went to them out of desperation... they lived hard, poorly paid, subsistence lives for at least a generation. Their children were forced into the factories just to eat.
But things got better. You don't see the way out because you're just starting to enter it. Might this be the end and the doom of us all? Possibly... I rather doubt it. But who knows.
My bloodline did not survive for hundreds of millions of years on this world by presuming I was going to die and giving up. I believe we will survive this and that we rise out of this better then before.
We tend to when we go through these changes. Ultimately they tend to be very positive. However, they are jarring to people unprepared for them.
Gird yourself for change. Do not become static or you will suffer.
Calm down. You're rattling off a lot of chicken little scare stories. We're fine.
No third party is ultimately trustworthy.
Keep in mind that people paying are also being paid by those same corporations. It is a symbiotic relationship. Do not presume to claim it is all bad.
We'll see what comes next.
I am pointing out that we have gone through this process many times in the past and it has always worked out the same way every single time.
So... yes... it might be painful. A generation or more might be under employed. But eventually it will sort itself out.
That is assuming the AI isn't superior to humans in all ways. In which case... it really depends on who controls the AI. Whomever has that control could effectively dictate the new social order. And given that the AI is superior in all ways... you'd be in no position to contest it. Terminator robots would slap you into compliance.
... over the short term jobs may be lost. They were after every previous advancement. But then the market found a place for the labor that was freed up in the process.
What happened to all the men that used to clear wheat fields? At one time over 80 percent of the labor force was concerned with agriculture. Today it is less then 5 percent. What happened to all those men? Do you think they got jobs immediately? Look back to the industrial revolution. Look at the starvation, poverty, etc. What was going on there? They didn't have work or had to take subsistence labor. It took a generation at least to adapt.
And then conditions improved as the labor force adapted to the new job market. Think back to the child labor... children working in the factories... they grew up in those places and they learned. These were people that in many cases had no experience with machines prior to that generation. They had tools on the farm but not what modern people would call machines.
The lessons are hard and painful sometimes but... necessary. We can't go back. Anyone that disagrees with me can go back to clearing wheat fields any time.
I won't go back.
The agricultural revolution ate the hunter gathers and fenced off their nomadic world. It took from them the only way they knew how to live. They could either take up farming or die.
The industrial revolution made the farms so efficient that only a tiny fraction of the population could make a living on them. The rest were forced into cities to work in the factories.
The information revolution is making the factories so efficient that only a tiny fraction of the population can make a living working in them. And the same is carrying through the rest of our labor market.
The question will be... what does the labor market of the future offer for the common person? I couldn't say. But it will be something. It is always something.
Flip that around. Competition itself ensures net neutrality. If I have five to a dozen ISPs to choose from at any location then why would I choose the ISP not offering net neutrality? It is the last mile providers that are dicking with the data. The backbone providers already embrace net neutrality.
The reason the last mile providers are dicking with the data is that they buy bandwidth just like their customers from an ISP in most cases. And that ISP links them to the global web. And the last mile ISP can make a little extra money by short changing some customers while being very careful to not interfere with the communications of clients that paid extra to be left alone.
If you have lots of last mile providers then every customer becomes important because the small customers have options and will leave you. Mistreat them and they're gone. Individually they're not very important, but collectively they're the most important.
As to mom and pop ISPs... there is no reason why an ISP couldn't be that small. The capital investment in equipment isn't a big deal. The primary reason we don't see this is that frequently ISPs are required to service an entire city if they service any part of it. That sort of outlay is not reasonable in most cases and well beyond the means of most businesses.
If you remove those restrictions, then the only expense is the actual cost of laying the cable, the actual cost of the equipment, and whatever the service fee is to link to the trunk line. All of which is easily affordable since the trunk contract would be on a bandwidth basis. If you're only linking a couple blocks then you only get charged for a couple blocks of bandwidth. Take whatever your operating costs are, double or triple that and pass it on the consumer.
Talk to the people in salt lake city. Google is offering magnitudes more bandwidth then the competition at the same price.
Right, because there is no other possible way to lay cable then the way they've always laid cable.
Or really do anything besides the way it was done before.
Which is why no one drives cars... because how do you put a saddle on a car?
Idiots like you shouldn't enter speculative discussions. You lack the imagination to see obvious solutions to simple problems.
Any place that had frequent changes to the cabling would either have an accessible conduit system or run the cables on poles.
In large cities, the conduit system would make the most sense. Most major cities already have versions of this in place thus requiring no change what so ever to existing models.
In small towns etc, they tend to run cables on poles and if there are only a dozen or so ISPs then they could all coexist on the same poles without a lot of trouble.