Whatever you think of Trump, he got into power in large part because of increasingly unstable and unsustainable political situations in the US political parties.
The republican party has been pushing for a transformation in platform since Reagan. And the Democratic party has been trending to shift its voter base as well.
Also, consider that the alternative to Trump was literally Hillary Clinton. Very little you can say about Trump does not apply in spades to Clinton.
Given the revelations as to what Hillary did to Bernie Sanders in so far as spying on email, staging altercations as Bernie's rallies, taking money from the DNC funds to use for her campaign when it was for both... I mean.
The Clintons were corrupt. You know that. Their corruption in the government spans decades. The cover ups were endless.
And now we have the MeToo Campaign which is creating additional awkwardness. Are all the people complaining about sexual harassment wrong or were the people that cited the inappropriateness of Bill Clinton's sexual behavior in office correct?
You're in a no win scenario here. And if you want to say all US politics are screwed... compared to which country? Cite your political utopia. I'll show you either as much fumbling corruption in that country or a nation where you wouldn't even know because the media are controlled.
The various european powers are hardly examples of competence. Europe has endless fumbling incompetence on a series of issues that have resulted in low economic growth, geopolitical weakness, and in some cases we're seeing literal insurrection.
The only compromise is one where it is appreciated that the US is not Sweden and the US is not a Unitary government. The only compromise is where the various states are permitted to do what they please as suits those states within reason and the Federal government only concerns itself with what must be federal.
Creating situations where its all or nothing... where its winner take all... where its one group gets everything they want and the other side gets screwed... well, you get "this".
And if it doesn't stop then the union itself will break up. You can't control the US this way. The states must be afforded reasonable limited sovereignty. The Federal government but be held to accountable standards where changes in policy happen democratically through the due process of our legislature and courts.
And if this isn't happening... and it hasn't been happening... then the republic will dissolve and those demanding control over all will have control over none.
This is non-negotiable.
The price of maintaining a unified nation is respecting rule of law and tolerating diversity between the sensibilities of the states.
If you can't do that, then the political instability will get worse until it shakes the republic apart at its foundations... leaving you with less than you'd control had you simply respected the law and your fellow citizens.
So, you then believe anything else unconfirmed sources in the CIA have said.
What is more, the evidence for this should be in the AV. There should be private IT establishments that should know as well.
What you're asking is for people to listen and believe despite there being no evidence of anything. At the very least you should concede that you don't have anything anyone can really rely on and that you have to have empathy for people that don't find it credible.
To say I must believe this despite really no evidence is absurd.
CIA said a lot of things over the years that many people didn't believe or contested. Is your argument that we should believe all the things the CIA has said over the years because I can get a list for you.
Are you prepared to believe them all? Or are you just going to say we should believe some but not all based on a secret system you've devised? This is pathetic, evidence for this should be something you can show. And if you can't, then you should have the common sense to know that it isn't a credible argument.
To neither present the evidence nor appreciate the argument has no validity... How can you be so blind?
Reminder that you need to answer whether you believe everything the CIA and NSA say or basically torpedo your whole argument.
Do you believe everything they say? Yes or no?
Because this is heads I win or tails you lose already here.
As to what you find uninformative, let us say I suggested right of way for people to drive cars on the road. And then the question was what sort of conditions would people have to meet to drive on the road.
And my response is "reasonable conditions"... Such as in the case of driving... passing a basic competency test in driving, understanding driving regulations, being recorded in state records, paying some nominal fees... etc. You want me to spell out a whole legal code? No. I'm going to assume you're reasonable and you understand what the word "reasonable" means within this context.
If you can't process that reasonable will mean not doing any of the obviously dumb things that can't happen whilst permitting all the basic things that must happen then I don't know what to tell you. I assume you're not a machine. I assume that if I say "the ball must be put in the cup at the other end of the room" you will navigate around obvious hazards between X and Y to do the task. Were you a machine, I'd have to instruct you to avoid everything that was there step by step because you wouldn't have the sense to avoid them.
I assume you do have the sense. I assume you're a human being with at least average human intelligence. So I assume you can say "reasonable" and you will get it.
Your questioning on that point leads me to think I gave you too much credit though. Unfortunate.
You people are about as convincing as creationists or flat earthers.
Evidence or join the Westbro baptist church...
If you're facetiously defending a dumb position then... ha ha... internet and lolz... But if you are serious, then put up or shut up. Provide the evidence. If its easy then you can do it.
If you can't do it then consider that maybe that is because it doesn't exist.
No, they just weren't buried at that time. They have more wires than that now but they're in conduits.
The picture you're referencing is from New York city before a blizzard that knocked down all the cables. Also, I believe the majority of those cables are electrical wiries... and given that the picture was taken in 1888, I think they may have even been DC wiring.
As to conditions, reasonable conditions. Same standard we use for all English Common Law. It isn't hard. Current conditions are not reasonable. Which is why only multi billion dollar corps can enter markets in most cases under these conditions.
As to who is in control, have the poles and conduits run by the city or state offering right of way access to whomever can meet reasonable regulations to gain that access.
As to me thinking, I don't think most people are thinking. That is the meaning of my statement. They are being told what to think and are repeating it.
I don't want to hear about any of this NN or Socialized ISP crap until we grant right of way to cables and conduits for third parties.
Its a giant shit show with monopolists of different types arguing for their monopoly.
Every article is "wahhh, monopolies that no one is allowed to compete with are behaving badly" or "waaah, government built ISPs which are even more monopolistic are even better!"...
How about no monopoly?
To which one of you knuckleheads will say "but then there will be too many cables and that will be ugly!"... This discussion is increasingly an argument against democracy if only because people are allowing themselves to be manipulated into taking positions because they're being told to adopt that position.
Think for yourselves or stop presuming to have an opinion.
Basically it would have to be near human voice recognition if it were implimented with humans.
Frankly, I've never liked voice interfaces. They don't stop and start recognizing when they should execute properly. And the accuracy of command execution is poor. And the speed of data entry or command entry is slow.
I can see some uses as a back up interface that would ignore commands unless certain conditions were met... and was only used for a few things. I don't see the use for it outside of that until the voice recognition AI gets pretty near Rosie the Robot.
Sure, if you won't simply stop granting them monopoly power you must regulate them heavily.
That is one path.
Consider the other... break the monopolies by allowing competition. Then you don't need to heavily regulate them. If any ISP does something shitty, another ISP will eat their market share.
Running cable and running an ISP is not expensive. If you look at what it costs to run out cable to a single neighborhood, it is comparable to starting a sandwich shop as far as what it costs. That isn't expensive either. The country is full of sandwich shops.
What people tend to insist with ISPs is that if they run cable they must run it for large regions or not at all. This is like saying if you want to open a sandwich shop you must open a thousand sandwich shops.
In a city like Los Angeles, where I live... there are thousands of sandwich like eateries. Thousands. Would it be reasonable to say that if you wanted to open one you'd have to open a thousand or even THOUSANDS? That is what prospective ISPs are told.
And it is why you only get the same mega corps laying cable. Reasonable? Nope.
Enough with the socialist internet ideas... it only works when your government is competent and cares. What makes any of you people think that is what we'd get in the US? What does the government run that you think is done very well? Name it and I'll come back at you with the documented incompetence.
Sure it is, because who says the reigning ISP has to provide good infrastructure in teh first place. You're assuming that ATT or Verizon's cables are WORTH subletting in the first place.
As to redundancy, we have redundant sandwich shops. We have redundant shoe factories. We have redundant search engines.
Redundancy ALLOWS competition because you can switch from X to Y. If there is no redundancy then I can't because the alternative does not exist.
So yes, I am arguing for redundancy because competition and redundancy are basically interwoven concepts. If the big ISP sublets broadband and everyone uses the sublet ISPs then you're still giving money to the big ISP.
I don't want to do that. I want to give them NOTHING. I want to totally cut them out of the system by allowing the American people to vote with their feet and wallets.
Your solution would preserve the monopolies and give people no ability to bypass them ever. It would be permanent market domination where your ISPs set the quality standard that everyone else has to tolerate because you can't buy bandwidth the big ISP doesn't lay in the cable. And the prices will be set by supply and demand as determined by the monopoly.
Your solution is no solution. It is an illusion of competition proposed to confuse people that don't understand that subletting from the big ISP is still leaving you as a customer of the big ISP.
I want that to stop. I want to be able to bypass them entirely. Cut out. Done. Fired.
Your solution is unacceptable. It will change nothing.
The cables should belong to the ISPs the poles and conduits should be a public utility like roads.
Any ISP no matter how small or humble should with reasonable limited regulation and fees be allowed to run their own cable from any point A to any other point B. Like roads. You pass some very basic regulation, you are licensed to travel on the road, you pay taxes and fees to pay for the maintenance of the road system, and then you do as you like on it.
You want a Ma Bell Monopoly to run the cables... probably under a quasi socialized wire network... and then to lease bandwidth on the wire network to smaller ISPs.
I don't want that. I want the poles and conduits to be opened up to right of way access to third parties.
The reason we have a duopoly is because of your thinking. And the reason we have companies that exploit the monopoly is because they are given a monopoly by the government.
Open them up to competition and the monopolies will no longer be monopolies.
Do you know what it takes to become an ISP in Los Angeles where I live? You have to promise and present a business plan to provide internet access to the entire city of millions upon millions of people.
Then people wonder why only a few mega corporations compete.
An ISP should be able to run cable to a single neighborhood or even a single building if they want. You bill them for the per pole or per foot conduit rate... you ensure they have complied with basic reasonable regulation to prevent any obvious problems... and then you just leave them alone.
The city can build and maintain poles. I trust them with that task. I also trust them with the building and maintenance of conduits.
Do this and the monopolies will be broken and the whole argument of NN will become irrelevant.
The endless evidence free whining out of people has palled. It is time to go to court and let the chips fall where they may.
X claims discrimination against Y? Take them to court. Any comment or accusation along these lines that doesn't wind up in court should be ignored.
And if you lost your court case, you were wrong. Your whine fest was about nothing. No one cares. Grow up.
If you win your court case, you were right. Your complaints were righteous and held up in a court of law. We should care. And it is the adult thing to address this behavior and control it going forward to avoid further litigation.
Endless complaints about discrimination going all over the place. Take it to court or be righteously ignored.
How do "Americans" see Online harassment?... that is controversial. We are of many minds on this so I'll just say how I see it.
I'm entirely happy to go after people that actually cause material harm to other people... especially if unprovoked.
If there is no evident material damage to someone, then I immediately take the situation less seriously. If two people get into a fight.. both absent some investigation have some presumptive fault. If people cry foul I'm going to want an explanation as to why a given party is at fault rather than the opposing party. Oft as not, I find the person complaining to be no less at fault than the supposed aggressor.
We're talking about ONLINE harassment. This means almost always literally facebook and twitter... basically nothing else of consequence. We read these stories in the newspaper and it is always some child or childlike adult that gets into a flame war with people that don't like them. Then rather than breaking off contact, they instead demand that X or Y be removed from a very public space as if a disagreement gives someone the right to make someone else go away. People enter these spaces and generally connect with people that they don't know. Some of those people will not like you. When this is expressed, this is often misrepresented as harassment. Disagreement is also often misrepresented as harassment. I also notice that people cry wolf on harassment to get a dog pile on someone they don't like. Its stuff that everyone has lots of experience with from kindergarten to old age. People do this sort of thing. Its nothing new or mysterious.
This harassment talk has the potential and sometimes the intent to justify censorship. It is also sometimes used to empower bullies and harassers that use group opinion manipulation to create witch trials etc.
I want a hard standard for this... and the standards are simple: Did you provoke a negative reaction? Are you interacting with open groups where anyone on planet earth can talk to you? Is it hard to demonstrate any material damage to yourself or anyone else? Can you end the "harassment" simply by backing out of a community or ignoring a given person?
I want to encourage healthy communities with rational reasonable people... but that's an idealistic aspiration that probably won't happen. At the end of the day, all I need is for people not take themselves more seriously than is reasonable and not draw the collective action of the community to deal with stuff that is a waste of our time.
They can be as large as you need them to be... the complaint doesn't matter. Currently you have an average of TWO service providers in an area... a phone and a cable tv provider... and should I suggest we have a third apparently this leads to chaos and ugliness...
Listen, if you want to break the monopolies you have to have as many companies running cable as the MARKET will bear. You say but the AESTHETICS... this is your argument... aesthetics. Tsk tsk and tut tut, sir.
if you have people running cable and paying a reasonable rate for their right of way then the city which provides the poles and the conduits can offer something reasonable.
I do not find it a credible argument to say that I must suffer the duopoly for your fears of wire ugliness and aesthetics. I think we can have something quite reasonably attractive if not utterly invisible depending on the situation. Big cities naturally have very extensive subsurface conduits already. Our cities are crisscrossed with disused gas mains etc. All of which has ALREADY been re purposed in many cases for communications wires etc.
This line of thinking leaves us with only two options which I find very rhetorically convenient. Either I must suffer a monopoly created by government regulations or I must "socialize" the internet... which means state ownership of the lot. uh huh.
Interesting. And since the monopoly is unacceptable on those terms... its socialism or nothing. Total government control or nothing.
Very convenient indeed.
You appreciate that I can reject your idea as frivolously as you rejected mine. We can run more cable and arguments to the contrary have boiled down to aesthetics and bluster.
Consider your position here. Maybe consider your whole stance on this issue. Because if this is what you've got, might not have thought about it as much as you think you have.
justifications for restriction to poles and thus reductions in competition is part of the problem. Open up the right of way with reasonable rules and fees. And if the poles get congested the fees should justify sub surface conduits. Regardless, this is the least of our current problems. I'll hazard this scenario and I think there is little justification at this point for not hazarding it.
Your first point is about VPNs which were associated with commercial connections. I agree the move was shitty... though it was not throughout the whole industry. It was something a few ISPs did because they could because of the duopoly stuff.
I hear you, but do consider that a big part of the NN fight was not the last mile people but what was going on with asymmetrical back end data contracts at the back bone level. There was shenanigans with Netflix etc that were a problem.
We're also seeing that between the repeal of NN and the tax bill that all the telecomms and ISPs are dumping huge sums into infrastructure. So, let us see what happens.
Keep in mind, I feel the major issue is the lack of competition that is largely the result of restrictive franchise agreements that prevent alternative ISPs from competing thus creating monopolies that then lead to people getting screwed. I want right of way to the poles and conduits with reasonable regulations and flat rates per pole etc.
But we're going to see the results of the changes. Thus far nothing has happened. Tell you what, for whatever it is worth to you... if the result of NN repeal is all the frogs raining from the sky that we're hearing from the alarmists... then I'll concede that was a mistake.
I don't think it will happen. And if it doesn't... will you be as adaptable with your position? That is between you and the setting sun. Let us hope I am right and you are wrong... my assumptions are rosier if they manifest.
Remember how the internet was an unending hell hole of bad service in 2015 before NN was passed?
Remember how the internet suddenly changed in any noticeable way between 2015 and 2017 when the internet was perfect and good and amazing?
Remember how when NN was struck down by the FCC it all went back to how it was before 2015?
Have your opinions... we all have them... but when your argument rests upon the listener having the attention span of a gold fish... consider that it won't be taken seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
He's all talk. There are loads of these guys. They all repeat the same garbage, know nothing, read nothing, have no integrity... they're trash.
Whatever you think of Trump, he got into power in large part because of increasingly unstable and unsustainable political situations in the US political parties.
The republican party has been pushing for a transformation in platform since Reagan. And the Democratic party has been trending to shift its voter base as well.
Also, consider that the alternative to Trump was literally Hillary Clinton. Very little you can say about Trump does not apply in spades to Clinton.
Given the revelations as to what Hillary did to Bernie Sanders in so far as spying on email, staging altercations as Bernie's rallies, taking money from the DNC funds to use for her campaign when it was for both... I mean.
The Clintons were corrupt. You know that. Their corruption in the government spans decades. The cover ups were endless.
And now we have the MeToo Campaign which is creating additional awkwardness. Are all the people complaining about sexual harassment wrong or were the people that cited the inappropriateness of Bill Clinton's sexual behavior in office correct?
You're in a no win scenario here. And if you want to say all US politics are screwed... compared to which country? Cite your political utopia. I'll show you either as much fumbling corruption in that country or a nation where you wouldn't even know because the media are controlled.
The various european powers are hardly examples of competence. Europe has endless fumbling incompetence on a series of issues that have resulted in low economic growth, geopolitical weakness, and in some cases we're seeing literal insurrection.
Cite your nation of wiser people. Try me.
The only compromise is one where it is appreciated that the US is not Sweden and the US is not a Unitary government. The only compromise is where the various states are permitted to do what they please as suits those states within reason and the Federal government only concerns itself with what must be federal.
Creating situations where its all or nothing... where its winner take all... where its one group gets everything they want and the other side gets screwed... well, you get "this".
And if it doesn't stop then the union itself will break up. You can't control the US this way. The states must be afforded reasonable limited sovereignty. The Federal government but be held to accountable standards where changes in policy happen democratically through the due process of our legislature and courts.
And if this isn't happening... and it hasn't been happening... then the republic will dissolve and those demanding control over all will have control over none.
This is non-negotiable.
The price of maintaining a unified nation is respecting rule of law and tolerating diversity between the sensibilities of the states.
If you can't do that, then the political instability will get worse until it shakes the republic apart at its foundations... leaving you with less than you'd control had you simply respected the law and your fellow citizens.
Every country has its own problems. In the US, the problem is right of way to poles and conduits.
So, you then believe anything else unconfirmed sources in the CIA have said.
What is more, the evidence for this should be in the AV. There should be private IT establishments that should know as well.
What you're asking is for people to listen and believe despite there being no evidence of anything. At the very least you should concede that you don't have anything anyone can really rely on and that you have to have empathy for people that don't find it credible.
To say I must believe this despite really no evidence is absurd.
CIA said a lot of things over the years that many people didn't believe or contested. Is your argument that we should believe all the things the CIA has said over the years because I can get a list for you.
Are you prepared to believe them all? Or are you just going to say we should believe some but not all based on a secret system you've devised? This is pathetic, evidence for this should be something you can show. And if you can't, then you should have the common sense to know that it isn't a credible argument.
To neither present the evidence nor appreciate the argument has no validity... How can you be so blind?
Reminder that you need to answer whether you believe everything the CIA and NSA say or basically torpedo your whole argument.
Do you believe everything they say? Yes or no?
Because this is heads I win or tails you lose already here.
As to what you find uninformative, let us say I suggested right of way for people to drive cars on the road. And then the question was what sort of conditions would people have to meet to drive on the road.
And my response is "reasonable conditions"... Such as in the case of driving... passing a basic competency test in driving, understanding driving regulations, being recorded in state records, paying some nominal fees... etc. You want me to spell out a whole legal code? No. I'm going to assume you're reasonable and you understand what the word "reasonable" means within this context.
If you can't process that reasonable will mean not doing any of the obviously dumb things that can't happen whilst permitting all the basic things that must happen then I don't know what to tell you. I assume you're not a machine. I assume that if I say "the ball must be put in the cup at the other end of the room" you will navigate around obvious hazards between X and Y to do the task. Were you a machine, I'd have to instruct you to avoid everything that was there step by step because you wouldn't have the sense to avoid them.
I assume you do have the sense. I assume you're a human being with at least average human intelligence. So I assume you can say "reasonable" and you will get it.
Your questioning on that point leads me to think I gave you too much credit though. Unfortunate.
We're done.
People that ask for evidence are russians...
You people are about as convincing as creationists or flat earthers.
Evidence or join the Westbro baptist church...
If you're facetiously defending a dumb position then... ha ha... internet and lolz... But if you are serious, then put up or shut up. Provide the evidence. If its easy then you can do it.
If you can't do it then consider that maybe that is because it doesn't exist.
No, they just weren't buried at that time. They have more wires than that now but they're in conduits.
The picture you're referencing is from New York city before a blizzard that knocked down all the cables. Also, I believe the majority of those cables are electrical wiries... and given that the picture was taken in 1888, I think they may have even been DC wiring.
Suffice to say... No.
As to conditions, reasonable conditions. Same standard we use for all English Common Law. It isn't hard. Current conditions are not reasonable. Which is why only multi billion dollar corps can enter markets in most cases under these conditions.
As to who is in control, have the poles and conduits run by the city or state offering right of way access to whomever can meet reasonable regulations to gain that access.
As to me thinking, I don't think most people are thinking. That is the meaning of my statement. They are being told what to think and are repeating it.
Cite it. If it is so obvious and so abundant... Cite it.
If you had a case, they'd go to court with it. No one is taking them to court... because there is no evidence.
Prove me wrong or you'll prove me right... right now.
lolz... exactly. :)
Mic drop.
I don't want to hear about any of this NN or Socialized ISP crap until we grant right of way to cables and conduits for third parties.
Its a giant shit show with monopolists of different types arguing for their monopoly.
Every article is "wahhh, monopolies that no one is allowed to compete with are behaving badly" or "waaah, government built ISPs which are even more monopolistic are even better!"...
How about no monopoly?
To which one of you knuckleheads will say "but then there will be too many cables and that will be ugly!"... This discussion is increasingly an argument against democracy if only because people are allowing themselves to be manipulated into taking positions because they're being told to adopt that position.
Think for yourselves or stop presuming to have an opinion.
Basically it would have to be near human voice recognition if it were implimented with humans.
Frankly, I've never liked voice interfaces. They don't stop and start recognizing when they should execute properly. And the accuracy of command execution is poor. And the speed of data entry or command entry is slow.
I can see some uses as a back up interface that would ignore commands unless certain conditions were met... and was only used for a few things. I don't see the use for it outside of that until the voice recognition AI gets pretty near Rosie the Robot.
Sure, if you won't simply stop granting them monopoly power you must regulate them heavily.
That is one path.
Consider the other... break the monopolies by allowing competition. Then you don't need to heavily regulate them. If any ISP does something shitty, another ISP will eat their market share.
Running cable and running an ISP is not expensive. If you look at what it costs to run out cable to a single neighborhood, it is comparable to starting a sandwich shop as far as what it costs. That isn't expensive either. The country is full of sandwich shops.
What people tend to insist with ISPs is that if they run cable they must run it for large regions or not at all. This is like saying if you want to open a sandwich shop you must open a thousand sandwich shops.
In a city like Los Angeles, where I live... there are thousands of sandwich like eateries. Thousands. Would it be reasonable to say that if you wanted to open one you'd have to open a thousand or even THOUSANDS? That is what prospective ISPs are told.
And it is why you only get the same mega corps laying cable. Reasonable? Nope.
Enough with the socialist internet ideas... it only works when your government is competent and cares. What makes any of you people think that is what we'd get in the US? What does the government run that you think is done very well? Name it and I'll come back at you with the documented incompetence.
Sure it is, because who says the reigning ISP has to provide good infrastructure in teh first place. You're assuming that ATT or Verizon's cables are WORTH subletting in the first place.
As to redundancy, we have redundant sandwich shops. We have redundant shoe factories. We have redundant search engines.
Redundancy ALLOWS competition because you can switch from X to Y. If there is no redundancy then I can't because the alternative does not exist.
So yes, I am arguing for redundancy because competition and redundancy are basically interwoven concepts. If the big ISP sublets broadband and everyone uses the sublet ISPs then you're still giving money to the big ISP.
I don't want to do that. I want to give them NOTHING. I want to totally cut them out of the system by allowing the American people to vote with their feet and wallets.
Your solution would preserve the monopolies and give people no ability to bypass them ever. It would be permanent market domination where your ISPs set the quality standard that everyone else has to tolerate because you can't buy bandwidth the big ISP doesn't lay in the cable. And the prices will be set by supply and demand as determined by the monopoly.
Your solution is no solution. It is an illusion of competition proposed to confuse people that don't understand that subletting from the big ISP is still leaving you as a customer of the big ISP.
I want that to stop. I want to be able to bypass them entirely. Cut out. Done. Fired.
Your solution is unacceptable. It will change nothing.
The cables should belong to the ISPs the poles and conduits should be a public utility like roads.
Any ISP no matter how small or humble should with reasonable limited regulation and fees be allowed to run their own cable from any point A to any other point B. Like roads. You pass some very basic regulation, you are licensed to travel on the road, you pay taxes and fees to pay for the maintenance of the road system, and then you do as you like on it.
You want a Ma Bell Monopoly to run the cables... probably under a quasi socialized wire network... and then to lease bandwidth on the wire network to smaller ISPs.
I don't want that. I want the poles and conduits to be opened up to right of way access to third parties.
The reason we have a duopoly is because of your thinking. And the reason we have companies that exploit the monopoly is because they are given a monopoly by the government.
Open them up to competition and the monopolies will no longer be monopolies.
Do you know what it takes to become an ISP in Los Angeles where I live? You have to promise and present a business plan to provide internet access to the entire city of millions upon millions of people.
Then people wonder why only a few mega corporations compete.
An ISP should be able to run cable to a single neighborhood or even a single building if they want. You bill them for the per pole or per foot conduit rate... you ensure they have complied with basic reasonable regulation to prevent any obvious problems... and then you just leave them alone.
The city can build and maintain poles. I trust them with that task. I also trust them with the building and maintenance of conduits.
Do this and the monopolies will be broken and the whole argument of NN will become irrelevant.
... literally the whole problem is the result of government created monopolies where in a few companies are allowed to run cable and no one else is...
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...
A little competition and the entire argument becomes moot.
The endless evidence free whining out of people has palled. It is time to go to court and let the chips fall where they may.
X claims discrimination against Y? Take them to court. Any comment or accusation along these lines that doesn't wind up in court should be ignored.
And if you lost your court case, you were wrong. Your whine fest was about nothing. No one cares. Grow up.
If you win your court case, you were right. Your complaints were righteous and held up in a court of law. We should care. And it is the adult thing to address this behavior and control it going forward to avoid further litigation.
Endless complaints about discrimination going all over the place. Take it to court or be righteously ignored.
How do "Americans" see Online harassment?... that is controversial. We are of many minds on this so I'll just say how I see it.
I'm entirely happy to go after people that actually cause material harm to other people... especially if unprovoked.
If there is no evident material damage to someone, then I immediately take the situation less seriously.
If two people get into a fight.. both absent some investigation have some presumptive fault. If people cry foul I'm going to want an explanation as to why a given party is at fault rather than the opposing party. Oft as not, I find the person complaining to be no less at fault than the supposed aggressor.
We're talking about ONLINE harassment. This means almost always literally facebook and twitter... basically nothing else of consequence. We read these stories in the newspaper and it is always some child or childlike adult that gets into a flame war with people that don't like them. Then rather than breaking off contact, they instead demand that X or Y be removed from a very public space as if a disagreement gives someone the right to make someone else go away. People enter these spaces and generally connect with people that they don't know. Some of those people will not like you. When this is expressed, this is often misrepresented as harassment. Disagreement is also often misrepresented as harassment. I also notice that people cry wolf on harassment to get a dog pile on someone they don't like. Its stuff that everyone has lots of experience with from kindergarten to old age. People do this sort of thing. Its nothing new or mysterious.
This harassment talk has the potential and sometimes the intent to justify censorship. It is also sometimes used to empower bullies and harassers that use group opinion manipulation to create witch trials etc.
I want a hard standard for this... and the standards are simple:
Did you provoke a negative reaction?
Are you interacting with open groups where anyone on planet earth can talk to you?
Is it hard to demonstrate any material damage to yourself or anyone else?
Can you end the "harassment" simply by backing out of a community or ignoring a given person?
I want to encourage healthy communities with rational reasonable people... but that's an idealistic aspiration that probably won't happen. At the end of the day, all I need is for people not take themselves more seriously than is reasonable and not draw the collective action of the community to deal with stuff that is a waste of our time.
... Orwell called it.
They can be as large as you need them to be... the complaint doesn't matter. Currently you have an average of TWO service providers in an area... a phone and a cable tv provider... and should I suggest we have a third apparently this leads to chaos and ugliness...
Listen, if you want to break the monopolies you have to have as many companies running cable as the MARKET will bear. You say but the AESTHETICS... this is your argument... aesthetics. Tsk tsk and tut tut, sir.
if you have people running cable and paying a reasonable rate for their right of way then the city which provides the poles and the conduits can offer something reasonable.
I do not find it a credible argument to say that I must suffer the duopoly for your fears of wire ugliness and aesthetics. I think we can have something quite reasonably attractive if not utterly invisible depending on the situation. Big cities naturally have very extensive subsurface conduits already. Our cities are crisscrossed with disused gas mains etc. All of which has ALREADY been re purposed in many cases for communications wires etc.
This line of thinking leaves us with only two options which I find very rhetorically convenient. Either I must suffer a monopoly created by government regulations or I must "socialize" the internet... which means state ownership of the lot. uh huh.
Interesting. And since the monopoly is unacceptable on those terms... its socialism or nothing. Total government control or nothing.
Very convenient indeed.
You appreciate that I can reject your idea as frivolously as you rejected mine. We can run more cable and arguments to the contrary have boiled down to aesthetics and bluster.
Consider your position here. Maybe consider your whole stance on this issue. Because if this is what you've got, might not have thought about it as much as you think you have.
Good day, sir.
justifications for restriction to poles and thus reductions in competition is part of the problem. Open up the right of way with reasonable rules and fees. And if the poles get congested the fees should justify sub surface conduits. Regardless, this is the least of our current problems. I'll hazard this scenario and I think there is little justification at this point for not hazarding it.
Your first point is about VPNs which were associated with commercial connections. I agree the move was shitty... though it was not throughout the whole industry. It was something a few ISPs did because they could because of the duopoly stuff.
I hear you, but do consider that a big part of the NN fight was not the last mile people but what was going on with asymmetrical back end data contracts at the back bone level. There was shenanigans with Netflix etc that were a problem.
We're also seeing that between the repeal of NN and the tax bill that all the telecomms and ISPs are dumping huge sums into infrastructure. So, let us see what happens.
Keep in mind, I feel the major issue is the lack of competition that is largely the result of restrictive franchise agreements that prevent alternative ISPs from competing thus creating monopolies that then lead to people getting screwed. I want right of way to the poles and conduits with reasonable regulations and flat rates per pole etc.
But we're going to see the results of the changes. Thus far nothing has happened. Tell you what, for whatever it is worth to you... if the result of NN repeal is all the frogs raining from the sky that we're hearing from the alarmists... then I'll concede that was a mistake.
I don't think it will happen. And if it doesn't... will you be as adaptable with your position? That is between you and the setting sun. Let us hope I am right and you are wrong... my assumptions are rosier if they manifest.
Remember how the internet was an unending hell hole of bad service in 2015 before NN was passed?
Remember how the internet suddenly changed in any noticeable way between 2015 and 2017 when the internet was perfect and good and amazing?
Remember how when NN was struck down by the FCC it all went back to how it was before 2015?
Have your opinions... we all have them... but when your argument rests upon the listener having the attention span of a gold fish... consider that it won't be taken seriously.