So... you think you're going to get paid for nothing... your entire life taken care of forever by a society that funds your life with... your "data"... and you think I am the one pushing a pie in the sky economic fantasy?:D
I don't think people appreciate how politics and power structures interface with economic imperitives. Much of the social and political liberalization in the Western world was a direct result of economic changes that made individuals more relevant to the logistical framework of the society.
The more the society becomes a command economy with top down control... the less the individual matters and thus the less the individual will matter. Your political agency will decline.
What is more, if you're economically and logistically irrelevant to the underlying requirements of the society... what is your leverage? Why should the society give you anything?
UBI = not just serfdom... it equals literal marginalization and eventually... Death.
Trying to figure out how many people support it or don't support it is not possibly by looking at the FCC's polling.
And more importantly, does anyone really care?
Let us say for the sake of argument that the polling were totally 100 percent accurate... would that change anyone's opinion on the matter? Nope. So why does it matter when its a dumpster fire? It doesn't.
Its a joke.
There is corruption on the issue everywhere. For AND against are both corrupt.
There are arguments to do it either way for various reasons.
The FOR campaign can point to bad behavior by monopolistic agencies that abuse consumers.
The AGAINST campaign can point to bad behavior by monopolistic agencies that abuse consumers.
BOTH sides accuse the other of being in the pocket of billion dollar mega corporations.
Consider that NN and anti-NN are both right at the same time for the same reason. Consider that the corruption is bigger and thus encompasses both positions at once.
1. I brought up an example of someone laying cable if they were connected enough and could bribe the corrupt system to allow them to do it. This was obvious.
I'm aware of it all and you're going out of your way to miss the point. I'll bullet point it for you.
1. HFT is not what the consumer needs so the exact strictures of that connection are not important. Cost saving would occur there naturally.
2. The wires laid were granted license and right of way. Why?
3. You're implying that ONE average home owner would have the full cost of a connection that actually supplies and entire industry. That is such a retarded argument that I actually am starting to feel sorry for you. The connection in comparison would be shared amongst thousands or more people.
4. The distance of the wire in question is vastly in excess of what LAST MILE users would need which would also drastically reduce the costs especially on a per user basis.
All of this was obvious. You just asked me to explain 1+1=2 to you. Here, I suspect you'll start drooling more vanilla pudding all over the keyboard that your assisted living facility feeds you.
holy hyperbole batman... so anyone that argues for more than the duopoly is arguing for an infinity of cables...
How many brands of peanut butter are there in the grocery store?
is it an infinity of peanut butter or are you an idiot?
Don't get mad... you don't have the right. You said something stupid.
I'm not asking for infinity... what are you even saying... there aren't even an infinity of people on the planet. I mean... what the actual fuck?
I envision somewhere between 3 and 10 providers depending on population density in any given area. Three being what I'd hope we could maintain in a rural environment and 10 being something you could probably maintain in a dense urban environment. We could well go beyond that which I would be fine with... within reason naturally. Everything I am saying should be understood to be within reason. I'm not a fanatic.
I'm foreseeing companies build out, some do well, some do poorly, different companies selling their cable to each other outright... the typical market back and forth.
The ACTUAL cost of equipment is relatively low. The relevant costs for rolling out these things and maintaining them is labor and licensing.
Labor is the problem of the ISP and from what I can see that isn't stopping anything. The LICENSING is stopping thing... call it what you will... franchise license... right of way access... whatever. The rubber stamp from the government that lets a company lay cable. I want that extended to anyone that can be shown to understand and respect the infrastructure and can pay the standard per pole rate.
If you have more people that want to run cable in an area than there is room on the pole then that is very exciting. It means that maybe we need to upgrade the pole. People would say "hey no one wants a bunch of ugly wires". Totally agree. So if we're getting that many people that want to run cable and they're all willing to pay the old per pole rate... and two carriers paying that per pole rate paid for the old poles... what does 5 times that rate pay for? Maybe a conduit? Who knows. The point is that if you have a higher traffic right of way cable corridor... then how you're stringing that cable can change based on demand. We may have a version of the high way system for cable. So poles for low traffic areas with few enough carriers that those poles are sufficient. And we might upgrade to a more robust infrastructure in cases where more cable needs to be run than can be supported by that system.
Here is where the government does a decent job. I think they do an okay job of maintaining poles and pipes. And in so far as I see them having a role in maintaining infrastructure, that is what I want them to do. I want them to provide space for other people to run wires. And I want them to lease that space out to the highest bidder. And then I want them expand the space as they run out of space so that there is always space for everyone that wants to run the cable that can afford the rate.
Keep in mind what I said there... afford the rate. There should be a standardized per foot or per pole rate for using the conduits and poles. Whatever the big ISPs pay is what the rate should be for everyone metered by use... as measured by distance and poles.
I want to put REAL pressure on these companies to provide good service or risk losing market share.
And if your socialized internet is shit what am I supposed to do then?
With my system we have choices.
With yours we not only have no choices but even if we choose nothing at all we're probably still going to be subsidizing your dumb system through tax dollars.
Your idea is even worse.
the existing system is a corporate monopoly. You want to resolve the matter with a government monopoly.
Hurray.
No. I want choices. Jumping from "lets trust a mega corporation" to "let us trust a corrupt/incompetent local government" is not helpful.
Proving your position is not helpful is that much of the current problems are the result of corruption and mismanagement by local and state governments. Your idea would empower the very agencies that have effectively created the problem to make them all powerful.
This is a failing UP scenario. If someone fucks up... you don't give them MORE power unless you are yourself a fool.
Consider NOT empowering agencies that consistently make mistakes.
You're citing them under title 2, citing them as a "common carrier"... and that is what gas line, power lines, etc are filed under. Effectively it treats last mile internet service as a public utility.
The problem with that is that last mile internet service is not like power, natural gas, water, etc. Yes, there is a local infrastructure that connects to your home but generally speaking it is unreasonable to have more than ONE water delivery system... ONE power delivery system etc.
What is more, these systems are generally socialized public utilities where as telecommunications are not.
It is both practical to have many providers laying cable in the same area and they are basically never owned by a quasi government agency.
In treating the duopoly in much the way that you treat interstate gas transport lines... you are presuming this similarity at a regulatory level. There is no interest in providing competition in such infrastructure because it is logistically counter productive.
This is again, not the case with telecommunications.
I want MANY choices. I want any company that lays cable in the area to know that if it provides bad service... all it takes is enough capital to lay the cable in the area with bad service... invested by practically anyone... to simply steal the market share of the area away from them.
I want pole and conduit right of way access to REASONABLE third party ISPs.
We saw recently that Louisville Kentucky was not able to get Google Fiber on its poles. Google Fiber is having a hard time getting pole Right of Way despite the city of Louisville wanting them to have it.
You're trying to not understand. You are very successful at strawmanning my position in your own mind. I can't penetrate your sense of things if you aren't even thinking.
Your entire premise at this point is that the big ISPs are dominant because it is too expensive to roll out competing infrastructure.
The problem with your position is that competition is demonstrably not stopped by infrastructure expenses but rather because people are not granted pole and conduit right of way.
That is evident in all the data.
Your entire position is thus not supported by observation where as the contrary position is supported by observation.
The point is not what it cost. The point is that they were allowed to do it. Keep in mind that a competing ISP would wire not ONE person with that kind of connection but perhaps thousands of people which would more than make it work economically.
I don't expect you to be able to process any of this... you're not thinking. You're just making idiot comments. I've provided articles and credible arguments to back up my position.
You think we need to PREVENT people from laying cable because the cable is too expensive to run. The moronic illogic of that is obvious to anyone that is thinking. I suspect it escapes you.
Negative. I'm saying that given entities have been given the ability by paying enough money to bypass the bullshit. Which is exactly what they do.
Prioritization is not the issue. Competition is the issue.
Give people choices... give smaller companies access to the poles and the whole matter will be irrelevant. There are small ISPs all over the country that are very happy to provide service in various places. They do not do it more than they do because they are STOPPED. They don't get a license to run their wires.
As stated here, even Google is having a hard time getting access to the poles. What is going on here is very obvious to anyone paying any attention at all.
If even google can't reliably get access to poles then what chance does anyone else stand?
And THAT is why we have a monopoly. Because like most monopolies, the government stops anyone from competing with the company they've picked to be god king.
I don't want them to govern the corrupt monopoly more effectively... I want the corrupt monopoly GONE.
There is plenty of pole space to run additional wires.
And the only reason they don't lease their wires to other people or portions of their bandwidth is because they have a monopoly on the wires.
Imagine if other people were running wires. Then the big ISP would have two choices... either lease none of its wire and get ZERO from the traffic flowing over the OTHER wires... or open access to their wires simply to get SOMETHING from the traffic by attracting it back to their own network.
And if there were ever any bullshit, people would just stop using their wires.
It solves the problem.
We have plenty of space for additional wires. What does the ISP pay the city per pole? I'm sure there is a calculation on that. Whatever that rate is, open that up so that anyone else running cable pays the same rate... per pole.
If there are so many wires on the poles that there actually isn't room... which is very unlikely. But lets say that happens, you'll be getting enough money from the pole fees to pay for a more elaborate solution.
Possibly conduits. Certainly in metro areas there isn't much reason to have poles at all. And again, the pole fees collectively would make the whole thing pay for itself.
And even IF what I'm saying is wrong... and I don't think it is... but EVEN IF... try it. Why forbid the experiment if you're so certain it will fail? Let it happen.
I think it will succeed and people are afraid it will work and prove all the doom and gloom to be bullshit.
People can't lay cable because the government won't let them. Every time anyone but the big ISPs tries they get sued, a court shuts them down, the city council forbids pole access, etc.
Process that.
No. Stop. Process it.
What is stopping competition is the GOVERNMENT is stopping it. If it were really just logistics and economics that were doing it then why would the END of these companies and ventures always be the government stopping them rather than them going out of business due to lack of customers or cost over runs. That isn't how they go down.
They go down because they're stopped.
That's the smoking gun. That is the red hand.
Its a silly thing to argue against because it is so obviously true.
It can also be a last mile private line from a given business to the trunk. That's as internet as anything. It is however, people bypassing a shit system.
What is more, the subversion is mostly taking place in the last mile.
In the backbone, the whole thing is generally a non-issue. There is also no monopoly in the backbone.
Where the issue is... is where the consumer has no choice.
Give the consumer a choice and the problem will go away.
Whatever the big isp's want, the end result is that everyone else isn't allowed to run the cable. So my point is literally accurate.
I see your point... but if we are to quibble it is also that there is corruption from local and state government to support the big ISPs. The bribes are there and it is very hard to extract bribe money from a large collection of companies without it getting out. It is very easy to maintain a corrupt relationship between a couple companies especially when in return for the bribes they get a monopoly which more than compensates the companies for the graft payments.
Stop. Do not respond. Read. Do not respond. Think. Then after you've read and thought about it... Then respond.
Your comments are utterly ignorant and thoughtless.
As to fiber not being cheap or easy... it is cheaper and easier to run fiber than it is to run anything else. It is the cheapest fucking cable out there.
Look, you think the reason something doesn't happen is because it is expensive? Well, then why prevent people from doing something that isn't economical? Certainly the bad economics would stop people from doing it in and of itself.
The reason you have to make it illegal is because it is economical and they would do it. So you stop them to prevent competition. Absent those laws we'd have lots of competition in every city in the US as the operating ISPs that are providing poor service at inflated costs would lose market share.
I'm not even trying here with these articles. It all too fucking easy. Do any kind of research. Literally anything. Pull your stupid head out of your ass and try again.
Slashdot Mirror
So... you think you're going to get paid for nothing... your entire life taken care of forever by a society that funds your life with... your "data"... and you think I am the one pushing a pie in the sky economic fantasy? :D
What is the weather like up your own ass?
... If you're not worth a paycheck?
I don't think people appreciate how politics and power structures interface with economic imperitives. Much of the social and political liberalization in the Western world was a direct result of economic changes that made individuals more relevant to the logistical framework of the society.
The more the society becomes a command economy with top down control... the less the individual matters and thus the less the individual will matter. Your political agency will decline.
What is more, if you're economically and logistically irrelevant to the underlying requirements of the society... what is your leverage? Why should the society give you anything?
UBI = not just serfdom... it equals literal marginalization and eventually... Death.
Careful what you wish for...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
50 cents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Most shills are ACs... it makes it easier for one person to pretend to be lots of people.
doesn't matter if the feds are running it or not.
there were bogus names FOR and AGAINST NN.
Trying to figure out how many people support it or don't support it is not possibly by looking at the FCC's polling.
And more importantly, does anyone really care?
Let us say for the sake of argument that the polling were totally 100 percent accurate... would that change anyone's opinion on the matter? Nope. So why does it matter when its a dumpster fire? It doesn't.
Its a joke.
There is corruption on the issue everywhere. For AND against are both corrupt.
There are arguments to do it either way for various reasons.
The FOR campaign can point to bad behavior by monopolistic agencies that abuse consumers.
The AGAINST campaign can point to bad behavior by monopolistic agencies that abuse consumers.
BOTH sides accuse the other of being in the pocket of billion dollar mega corporations.
Consider that NN and anti-NN are both right at the same time for the same reason. Consider that the corruption is bigger and thus encompasses both positions at once.
1. I brought up an example of someone laying cable if they were connected enough and could bribe the corrupt system to allow them to do it. This was obvious.
I'm aware of it all and you're going out of your way to miss the point. I'll bullet point it for you.
1. HFT is not what the consumer needs so the exact strictures of that connection are not important. Cost saving would occur there naturally.
2. The wires laid were granted license and right of way. Why?
3. You're implying that ONE average home owner would have the full cost of a connection that actually supplies and entire industry. That is such a retarded argument that I actually am starting to feel sorry for you. The connection in comparison would be shared amongst thousands or more people.
4. The distance of the wire in question is vastly in excess of what LAST MILE users would need which would also drastically reduce the costs especially on a per user basis.
All of this was obvious. You just asked me to explain 1+1=2 to you. Here, I suspect you'll start drooling more vanilla pudding all over the keyboard that your assisted living facility feeds you.
You continue to know nothing.
The 14 million dollar connection you think is a win for you... what is its capacity, shit for brains?
Do you know?
Of course, because in soviet utopia everything works.
No, government owns everything and you have no choices. Its the government or nothing.
And given that the government has corruptly managed this thus far, why would you be so stupid as to trust them with everything?
I want choices. You want everything in government hands. Move to Cuba. Enjoy the endless government services.
To a certain extent, I want bad behavior from telecoms because I want right of way access to the poles and conduits for any reasonable license holder.
holy hyperbole batman... so anyone that argues for more than the duopoly is arguing for an infinity of cables...
How many brands of peanut butter are there in the grocery store?
is it an infinity of peanut butter or are you an idiot?
Don't get mad... you don't have the right. You said something stupid.
I'm not asking for infinity... what are you even saying ... there aren't even an infinity of people on the planet. I mean... what the actual fuck?
I envision somewhere between 3 and 10 providers depending on population density in any given area. Three being what I'd hope we could maintain in a rural environment and 10 being something you could probably maintain in a dense urban environment. We could well go beyond that which I would be fine with... within reason naturally. Everything I am saying should be understood to be within reason. I'm not a fanatic.
I'm foreseeing companies build out, some do well, some do poorly, different companies selling their cable to each other outright... the typical market back and forth.
The ACTUAL cost of equipment is relatively low. The relevant costs for rolling out these things and maintaining them is labor and licensing.
Labor is the problem of the ISP and from what I can see that isn't stopping anything. The LICENSING is stopping thing... call it what you will... franchise license... right of way access... whatever. The rubber stamp from the government that lets a company lay cable. I want that extended to anyone that can be shown to understand and respect the infrastructure and can pay the standard per pole rate.
If you have more people that want to run cable in an area than there is room on the pole then that is very exciting. It means that maybe we need to upgrade the pole. People would say "hey no one wants a bunch of ugly wires". Totally agree. So if we're getting that many people that want to run cable and they're all willing to pay the old per pole rate... and two carriers paying that per pole rate paid for the old poles... what does 5 times that rate pay for? Maybe a conduit? Who knows. The point is that if you have a higher traffic right of way cable corridor... then how you're stringing that cable can change based on demand. We may have a version of the high way system for cable. So poles for low traffic areas with few enough carriers that those poles are sufficient. And we might upgrade to a more robust infrastructure in cases where more cable needs to be run than can be supported by that system.
Here is where the government does a decent job. I think they do an okay job of maintaining poles and pipes. And in so far as I see them having a role in maintaining infrastructure, that is what I want them to do. I want them to provide space for other people to run wires. And I want them to lease that space out to the highest bidder. And then I want them expand the space as they run out of space so that there is always space for everyone that wants to run the cable that can afford the rate.
Keep in mind what I said there... afford the rate. There should be a standardized per foot or per pole rate for using the conduits and poles. Whatever the big ISPs pay is what the rate should be for everyone metered by use... as measured by distance and poles.
I want to put REAL pressure on these companies to provide good service or risk losing market share.
NN does not do that.
And if your socialized internet is shit what am I supposed to do then?
With my system we have choices.
With yours we not only have no choices but even if we choose nothing at all we're probably still going to be subsidizing your dumb system through tax dollars.
Your idea is even worse.
the existing system is a corporate monopoly. You want to resolve the matter with a government monopoly.
Hurray.
No. I want choices. Jumping from "lets trust a mega corporation" to "let us trust a corrupt/incompetent local government" is not helpful.
Proving your position is not helpful is that much of the current problems are the result of corruption and mismanagement by local and state governments. Your idea would empower the very agencies that have effectively created the problem to make them all powerful.
This is a failing UP scenario. If someone fucks up... you don't give them MORE power unless you are yourself a fool.
Consider NOT empowering agencies that consistently make mistakes.
Please.
You're citing them under title 2, citing them as a "common carrier"... and that is what gas line, power lines, etc are filed under. Effectively it treats last mile internet service as a public utility.
The problem with that is that last mile internet service is not like power, natural gas, water, etc. Yes, there is a local infrastructure that connects to your home but generally speaking it is unreasonable to have more than ONE water delivery system... ONE power delivery system etc.
What is more, these systems are generally socialized public utilities where as telecommunications are not.
It is both practical to have many providers laying cable in the same area and they are basically never owned by a quasi government agency.
In treating the duopoly in much the way that you treat interstate gas transport lines... you are presuming this similarity at a regulatory level. There is no interest in providing competition in such infrastructure because it is logistically counter productive.
This is again, not the case with telecommunications.
I want MANY choices. I want any company that lays cable in the area to know that if it provides bad service... all it takes is enough capital to lay the cable in the area with bad service... invested by practically anyone... to simply steal the market share of the area away from them.
I want pole and conduit right of way access to REASONABLE third party ISPs.
We saw recently that Louisville Kentucky was not able to get Google Fiber on its poles. Google Fiber is having a hard time getting pole Right of Way despite the city of Louisville wanting them to have it.
This is what is going on.
Competition is being stiffed at ground level.
You're trying to not understand. You are very successful at strawmanning my position in your own mind. I can't penetrate your sense of things if you aren't even thinking.
Your entire premise at this point is that the big ISPs are dominant because it is too expensive to roll out competing infrastructure.
The problem with your position is that competition is demonstrably not stopped by infrastructure expenses but rather because people are not granted pole and conduit right of way.
That is evident in all the data.
Your entire position is thus not supported by observation where as the contrary position is supported by observation.
I totally get you. That said, this is again only an issue because comcast believes they have the leverage to demand that sort of thing.
Why do we give them that leverage? Why do we prevent other companies from competing with them and then act surprised when they abuse the monopoly?
We can regulate the monopoly so that they're less annoying about it.
That is what NN does. I see this.
However, wouldn't it be better to just stop the monopoly outright? They wont' abuse their leverage if they have none.
Sure, right of way to poles doesn't matter. You're right. We should maintain the monopoly.
Good to know. You're so wise./s
You didn't think. Sad.
The point is not what it cost. The point is that they were allowed to do it. Keep in mind that a competing ISP would wire not ONE person with that kind of connection but perhaps thousands of people which would more than make it work economically.
I don't expect you to be able to process any of this... you're not thinking. You're just making idiot comments. I've provided articles and credible arguments to back up my position.
You think we need to PREVENT people from laying cable because the cable is too expensive to run. The moronic illogic of that is obvious to anyone that is thinking. I suspect it escapes you.
Good day.
Negative. I'm saying that given entities have been given the ability by paying enough money to bypass the bullshit. Which is exactly what they do.
Prioritization is not the issue. Competition is the issue.
Give people choices... give smaller companies access to the poles and the whole matter will be irrelevant. There are small ISPs all over the country that are very happy to provide service in various places. They do not do it more than they do because they are STOPPED. They don't get a license to run their wires.
As stated here, even Google is having a hard time getting access to the poles. What is going on here is very obvious to anyone paying any attention at all.
If even google can't reliably get access to poles then what chance does anyone else stand?
And THAT is why we have a monopoly. Because like most monopolies, the government stops anyone from competing with the company they've picked to be god king.
I don't want them to govern the corrupt monopoly more effectively... I want the corrupt monopoly GONE.
There is plenty of pole space to run additional wires.
And the only reason they don't lease their wires to other people or portions of their bandwidth is because they have a monopoly on the wires.
Imagine if other people were running wires. Then the big ISP would have two choices... either lease none of its wire and get ZERO from the traffic flowing over the OTHER wires... or open access to their wires simply to get SOMETHING from the traffic by attracting it back to their own network.
And if there were ever any bullshit, people would just stop using their wires.
It solves the problem.
We have plenty of space for additional wires. What does the ISP pay the city per pole? I'm sure there is a calculation on that. Whatever that rate is, open that up so that anyone else running cable pays the same rate... per pole.
If there are so many wires on the poles that there actually isn't room... which is very unlikely. But lets say that happens, you'll be getting enough money from the pole fees to pay for a more elaborate solution.
Possibly conduits. Certainly in metro areas there isn't much reason to have poles at all. And again, the pole fees collectively would make the whole thing pay for itself.
And even IF what I'm saying is wrong... and I don't think it is... but EVEN IF... try it. Why forbid the experiment if you're so certain it will fail? Let it happen.
I think it will succeed and people are afraid it will work and prove all the doom and gloom to be bullshit.
Maybe you're the shill, AC.
People can't lay cable because the government won't let them. Every time anyone but the big ISPs tries they get sued, a court shuts them down, the city council forbids pole access, etc.
Process that.
No. Stop. Process it.
What is stopping competition is the GOVERNMENT is stopping it. If it were really just logistics and economics that were doing it then why would the END of these companies and ventures always be the government stopping them rather than them going out of business due to lack of customers or cost over runs. That isn't how they go down.
They go down because they're stopped.
That's the smoking gun. That is the red hand.
Its a silly thing to argue against because it is so obviously true.
It can also be a last mile private line from a given business to the trunk. That's as internet as anything. It is however, people bypassing a shit system.
What is more, the subversion is mostly taking place in the last mile.
In the backbone, the whole thing is generally a non-issue. There is also no monopoly in the backbone.
Where the issue is... is where the consumer has no choice.
Give the consumer a choice and the problem will go away.
NN ultimately is about treating the ISPs like old ma bell. I do not want that. It is either/or.
If you accept the existing NN concept, then you're conceding the monopolies get to be monopolies indefinitely.
No. I don't want NN. I want competition. I want right of way to the poles. Anything less is a farce.
NN does nothing. If anything, I want the monopolies that NN enshrines in law to do bad things to piss people off. I want the monopolies crushed.
I'm very happy to create a shit show that lasts a couple years to get a long term solution to the problem.
Whatever the big isp's want, the end result is that everyone else isn't allowed to run the cable. So my point is literally accurate.
I see your point... but if we are to quibble it is also that there is corruption from local and state government to support the big ISPs. The bribes are there and it is very hard to extract bribe money from a large collection of companies without it getting out. It is very easy to maintain a corrupt relationship between a couple companies especially when in return for the bribes they get a monopoly which more than compensates the companies for the graft payments.
You know nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
Stop. Do not respond. Read. Do not respond. Think. Then after you've read and thought about it... Then respond.
Your comments are utterly ignorant and thoughtless.
As to fiber not being cheap or easy... it is cheaper and easier to run fiber than it is to run anything else. It is the cheapest fucking cable out there.
Look, you think the reason something doesn't happen is because it is expensive? Well, then why prevent people from doing something that isn't economical? Certainly the bad economics would stop people from doing it in and of itself.
The reason you have to make it illegal is because it is economical and they would do it. So you stop them to prevent competition. Absent those laws we'd have lots of competition in every city in the US as the operating ISPs that are providing poor service at inflated costs would lose market share.
https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
I'm not even trying here with these articles. It all too fucking easy. Do any kind of research. Literally anything. Pull your stupid head out of your ass and try again.