The small carriers need to be able to lay their own cable or everyone is restricted to whatever the big ISPs provided. If the big isps are doing a bad job then everyone suffers for it.
Let the small operators compete at every level and the big operators will have to actually work to maintain their subscriber base.
Well, they're actually irrelevant. I'm not sure if that's their fault but technology has generally made them irrelevant.
As to the merits of the postal system, they only have what they have because they have a government fiat. Why is it that people like you are always happy with government fiats but suddenly have a problem when a corporation has one?
What is the difference in your mind?
Why not just give me total dictatorial control over the internet. Personally.
What do you honestly think the difference is between giving it to a committee of faceless bureaucrats or just giving it to me?
Seriously... think about it.
How do you know I'm not on that committee?
How do you know that corporate X that you hate so much doesn't either have a seat or lots of influence on it?
Think it through. Giving the government control just means you've given whomever has control the power of the government.
Piss off a company what is the worst they can do?... Sue you? All that means is they can convince the government to come after you. But if the government is in charge directly they don't need to do that. They can just skip that step and go right after you.
I'd much rather this stay in private hands because they'll be less powerful and less able to get away with murder.
Look at the shit the government has gotten away with lately and ask if a corporation would get away with the same?
What was that, Anonymous Coward? An empty and worthless insult without basis? thank you for your contribution to this discussion... everyone appreciates your utter lack of value.
Tell you what, end the ability for the USPS to borrow from the US government, require that it funds itself entirely with its own resources, and make it impossible for it to be bailed out by the US government...
And I think you'll find that most of the restrictions on their finances go away.
The issue with them is that many believe they have decided to run up debt, default, and then the US government bails them out to the tune of whatever the bill is... As a way of subverting budget limits etc.
So... put our minds at ease... Ensure that that can't happen. And then we'll just let the post office do whatever it wants and when it does go bankrupt... that's on you.
Deal? Or will you prove our concerns valid by refusing the move.
Pension costs throughout the country are spiking and governments across the country are underfunding their pensions as a result.
the only organization that is funding them fully is the federal government and they only do that because they print their own money.
The goal with the postal service is to make it self sufficient. To fund all associated expenses with postal charges. End of story.
We have no confidence that the postal service will do that unless a very sharp blade is held against their throat... and they understand that fucking with the numbers means they get cut.
So requiring the funding of pension obligations for the full life of an employee is one way to do that.
If you've got a better way then by all means suggest it. Otherwise, we'll go with the best idea on offer.
You're right... its all a corporate plot against the USPS...
It has nothing to do with the fact that practically every government agency in the country is hiding budget short falls by underfunding pension funds and then when they default drawing upon Federal debt to repay it.
Either the USPS is unsubsidized or it is.
I said it was... you say it isn't.
Well... are they borrowing from the US government or am I completely fucking right?
Do not disagree with people when you know they're right. I am right. You know it. I know it.
You want to make a different argument? Fine. But on the issue of whether or not the USPS is subsidized, I am correct. That much is obvious. Are many people trying to spin them off as a private entity? Yes. Is it a private entity? Obviously not. The US congress as you just pointed out effects their policy directly. A private entity would not be micromanaged by congress.
So they're subsidized.
I really wish I could slap the shit out of you... simply for wasting my time pointing out something that is that fucking obvious. Please slap the shit out of yourself... if only so the next person that comes after me isn't so burdened with your idiocy.
So long as you admit that you are using government regulation to suppress competition we agree.
your argument seems to be that we have to prevent competition because you don't want a lot of wires on the pole.
Fine. Admit that.
Then own the consequences of your decision.
I would much rather have that rat's nest then gift one company with a monopoly or appoint some giant government body to run it for me.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that if we had that many ISPs operating in one area we could bury the cable. The reason we don't is because its too expensive to do that if you only have a couple companies running line. But if I have dozens or more then suddenly it becomes much more practical.
Come now... think. Use your fucking brain... I know it hurts... try anyway.
Ignorant... the postal service is in debt to a tune of 45 billion dollars last time I checked. Who loaned them that money? Hint... it wasn't a private bank.
We loaned the money. They draw on a bottomless credit account provided by the american people. I believe its zero interest as well. Which means we pay the interest.
Kindly refrain from inflicting your ignorance on me further... I find slapping down this foolishness to be tedious.
Why can't I start my own ISP? Let say I live in NYC... a high density area and there is a trunk line near where I live that I could tap into.
Why can't I literally run cable from an office to one apartment building and offer that building my service?
The wiring isn't a big deal.
Yes, wiring a whole country is beyond the means of a small business, but small businesses typically serve a small area. Your local sandwich shop isn't feeding the whole country. They feed a couple hundred people every day. That's it.
By the same token, a small ISP offering last mile service just runs cable to one community then taps into a trunk line that it purchases bandwidth from.
There is no natural barrier. The reason they don't is because the leasing rates for the poles are not reasonable.
My only issue with municipal ISPs is when they are subsidized by tax dollars.
If they operate entirely on customer subscription fees, then I don't mind them.
If they either forbid competition for force people to pay for their services then I am against them in the same way I would if a corporation forced people to use their service.
I do not like monopolies maintained at gun point. And when the government forces you to use their service or pay for their service they do so at gun point. Try to not pay them. See what happens. At some point men with guns will show up and shoot you.
I support the government's right to have this power WHEN it is required. But ONLY when it is required.
Establishing a municipal ISP is not something the government should have the right to shoot people over. Thus they have no right to compel anyone to use or pay for it or forbid others to come up with other systems.
The government has a right to shoot people to stop other people from victimizing people. They have a right to shoot to protect. To stop murder, rape, theft, etc.
If nothing of that nature is happening they have no right to shoot anyone.
That is my position. It is further my position that to hold any other position is to invite tyranny.
As to how many ISPs per pole... The poles obviously have their rated limits. However, as more ISPs use the same pole the ability to upgrade the pole to something that takes a bigger load increases.
So I see no reason to limit them at all. If ten or twenty ISPs are on the same pole then there shouldn't be any need for an upgrade. The poles can certainly handle that load. Now if hundreds wanted to use the same pole we might have to go with a tunnel, pipe, or a bigger pole. Either way, if you had hundreds going through there the leasing fees paid by each would collectively be enough to afford whatever you needed.
So I see no reason to restrict them at all.
I do not think you'll get more then a dozen in any area simply because the economics of running that much redundant cable should probably make that prohibitive.
However, I will let the market decide how much cable it wants to run. I'm assuming that in rural areas you'll get two to four providers, in suburban ares you might get a dozen, in urban areas you might get fifty to a hundred.
It all works out to customers per square mile. If it is practical provide access to rural customers that might only have 100 customers per square mile then what happens in an urban area where there might be as many as a 500,000 people in a square mile.
You see... customers per square mile. That's the math.
As to Europe and Asia, the point remains that Russia is not a western country.
Never have been. And while they were offered into our club they have spat in our faces. So they remain outside.
As to Japan, my only point was that by any rational modern reinterpretation of definitions Japan would be more likely to be considered western then would Russia.
What does western mean to you?
Lets stop dicking around here and you just tell me what you think western means. I assure you that you're going to find your definition either so expansive that lots of countries you didn't think qualified do qualify or you're going to find Russia not on the list.
I did this calculation already... here is your chance to do it yourself and come to the same conclusion.
By your same logic, the government could mow your lawn as well or paint your house. But I wouldn't hire them to do either.
Just because the government might be able to do something does not mean they should.
To the contrary, government should only do what they MUST do... if we put government in charge of everything they COULD do then they could chew your food for you as well.
I would just assume not have that happen though.
Explain why the government MUST do this... not whether or not they can.
You mistake philosophical arguments with intelligence.
You can be racist and bigoted and yet be intelligent.
Okay... it clear that you're not using the word "intelligence" correctly. That's fine.
I will give you a new term which you can substitute with something else later if you don't like the designation.
We'll call it quality X2B for now. Use that term and not intelligence unless you ACTUALLY mean intelligence in the way that Websters would mean intelligence.
Now, you say the Human race does not display quality X2B? Explain this quality. Define it.
If you cannot, then I would question your intelligence... as Websters defines it. There is no quality I understand that I cannot define. If you understand X2B, then you can define it.
Why do I need to explain them? Their existence argues for my solution more then any other.
The point is that competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
If you want a local ISP to be run by your city or town, I have NO problem with that. Just don't forbid competition or force people to belong or pay for your service.
If your service is good then by out competing your rivals you will thrive.
If your service sucks or is expensive then people will drop it.
That is all I want. The ability to fire bad providers and hire good ones. Nothing more.
Let the customer decide on an individual basis what is and is not acceptable. And give them enough options that those decisions matter.
Just because you have a cable company and a DSL provider doesn't mean you have competition.
Most places in the US have that.
Duopoloies furthermore are quite common throughout the US. What I am talking about are multiple cable companies and multiple DSL providers and multiple fiber providers all offering last mile delivery.
most of the regulation we need is on state and cities not on the ISPs themselves. The issue is that the local governments are interfering with the ability of ISPs to run cable. The result is that only large ISPs can run cable. Which means that the only ISPs running cable to your door are large ISPs. Those ISPs generally enjoy regional monopolies and therefore do not compete. And it is that lack of competition that allows this situation to occur.
So yes... regulation... but not on the ISPs. Government must be restrained from fucking up the system. That is my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Its something but its not enough.
The small carriers need to be able to lay their own cable or everyone is restricted to whatever the big ISPs provided. If the big isps are doing a bad job then everyone suffers for it.
Let the small operators compete at every level and the big operators will have to actually work to maintain their subscriber base.
Well, they're actually irrelevant. I'm not sure if that's their fault but technology has generally made them irrelevant.
As to the merits of the postal system, they only have what they have because they have a government fiat. Why is it that people like you are always happy with government fiats but suddenly have a problem when a corporation has one?
What is the difference in your mind?
Why not just give me total dictatorial control over the internet. Personally.
What do you honestly think the difference is between giving it to a committee of faceless bureaucrats or just giving it to me?
Seriously... think about it.
How do you know I'm not on that committee?
How do you know that corporate X that you hate so much doesn't either have a seat or lots of influence on it?
Think it through. Giving the government control just means you've given whomever has control the power of the government.
Piss off a company what is the worst they can do?... Sue you? All that means is they can convince the government to come after you. But if the government is in charge directly they don't need to do that. They can just skip that step and go right after you.
I'd much rather this stay in private hands because they'll be less powerful and less able to get away with murder.
Look at the shit the government has gotten away with lately and ask if a corporation would get away with the same?
What is this previous time you're referring to... because I question your knowledge of history.
What was that, Anonymous Coward? An empty and worthless insult without basis? thank you for your contribution to this discussion... everyone appreciates your utter lack of value.
Tell you what, end the ability for the USPS to borrow from the US government, require that it funds itself entirely with its own resources, and make it impossible for it to be bailed out by the US government...
And I think you'll find that most of the restrictions on their finances go away.
The issue with them is that many believe they have decided to run up debt, default, and then the US government bails them out to the tune of whatever the bill is... As a way of subverting budget limits etc.
So... put our minds at ease... Ensure that that can't happen. And then we'll just let the post office do whatever it wants and when it does go bankrupt... that's on you.
Deal? Or will you prove our concerns valid by refusing the move.
Pension costs throughout the country are spiking and governments across the country are underfunding their pensions as a result.
the only organization that is funding them fully is the federal government and they only do that because they print their own money.
The goal with the postal service is to make it self sufficient. To fund all associated expenses with postal charges. End of story.
We have no confidence that the postal service will do that unless a very sharp blade is held against their throat... and they understand that fucking with the numbers means they get cut.
So requiring the funding of pension obligations for the full life of an employee is one way to do that.
If you've got a better way then by all means suggest it. Otherwise, we'll go with the best idea on offer.
You're right... its all a corporate plot against the USPS...
It has nothing to do with the fact that practically every government agency in the country is hiding budget short falls by underfunding pension funds and then when they default drawing upon Federal debt to repay it.
Either the USPS is unsubsidized or it is.
I said it was... you say it isn't.
Well... are they borrowing from the US government or am I completely fucking right?
Do not disagree with people when you know they're right. I am right. You know it. I know it.
You want to make a different argument? Fine. But on the issue of whether or not the USPS is subsidized, I am correct. That much is obvious. Are many people trying to spin them off as a private entity? Yes. Is it a private entity? Obviously not. The US congress as you just pointed out effects their policy directly. A private entity would not be micromanaged by congress.
So they're subsidized.
I really wish I could slap the shit out of you... simply for wasting my time pointing out something that is that fucking obvious. Please slap the shit out of yourself... if only so the next person that comes after me isn't so burdened with your idiocy.
good day, sir.
So long as you admit that you are using government regulation to suppress competition we agree.
your argument seems to be that we have to prevent competition because you don't want a lot of wires on the pole.
Fine. Admit that.
Then own the consequences of your decision.
I would much rather have that rat's nest then gift one company with a monopoly or appoint some giant government body to run it for me.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that if we had that many ISPs operating in one area we could bury the cable. The reason we don't is because its too expensive to do that if you only have a couple companies running line. But if I have dozens or more then suddenly it becomes much more practical.
Come now... think. Use your fucking brain... I know it hurts... try anyway.
I cite a fact that contradicts your argument and you say I have a problem with reality?
Illogical and stupid.
You lose by default.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
You didn't explain why government must do it.
Very well, explain why government shouldn't paint your house or mow your lawn then?
Ignorant... the postal service is in debt to a tune of 45 billion dollars last time I checked. Who loaned them that money? Hint... it wasn't a private bank.
We loaned the money. They draw on a bottomless credit account provided by the american people. I believe its zero interest as well. Which means we pay the interest.
Kindly refrain from inflicting your ignorance on me further... I find slapping down this foolishness to be tedious.
Except for that isn't what stops them.
Why can't I start my own ISP? Let say I live in NYC... a high density area and there is a trunk line near where I live that I could tap into.
Why can't I literally run cable from an office to one apartment building and offer that building my service?
The wiring isn't a big deal.
Yes, wiring a whole country is beyond the means of a small business, but small businesses typically serve a small area. Your local sandwich shop isn't feeding the whole country. They feed a couple hundred people every day. That's it.
By the same token, a small ISP offering last mile service just runs cable to one community then taps into a trunk line that it purchases bandwidth from.
There is no natural barrier. The reason they don't is because the leasing rates for the poles are not reasonable.
Okay... have fun with .5 megabits forever.
My only issue with municipal ISPs is when they are subsidized by tax dollars.
If they operate entirely on customer subscription fees, then I don't mind them.
If they either forbid competition for force people to pay for their services then I am against them in the same way I would if a corporation forced people to use their service.
I do not like monopolies maintained at gun point. And when the government forces you to use their service or pay for their service they do so at gun point. Try to not pay them. See what happens. At some point men with guns will show up and shoot you.
I support the government's right to have this power WHEN it is required. But ONLY when it is required.
Establishing a municipal ISP is not something the government should have the right to shoot people over. Thus they have no right to compel anyone to use or pay for it or forbid others to come up with other systems.
The government has a right to shoot people to stop other people from victimizing people. They have a right to shoot to protect. To stop murder, rape, theft, etc.
If nothing of that nature is happening they have no right to shoot anyone.
That is my position. It is further my position that to hold any other position is to invite tyranny.
As to how many ISPs per pole... The poles obviously have their rated limits. However, as more ISPs use the same pole the ability to upgrade the pole to something that takes a bigger load increases.
So I see no reason to limit them at all. If ten or twenty ISPs are on the same pole then there shouldn't be any need for an upgrade. The poles can certainly handle that load. Now if hundreds wanted to use the same pole we might have to go with a tunnel, pipe, or a bigger pole. Either way, if you had hundreds going through there the leasing fees paid by each would collectively be enough to afford whatever you needed.
So I see no reason to restrict them at all.
I do not think you'll get more then a dozen in any area simply because the economics of running that much redundant cable should probably make that prohibitive.
However, I will let the market decide how much cable it wants to run. I'm assuming that in rural areas you'll get two to four providers, in suburban ares you might get a dozen, in urban areas you might get fifty to a hundred.
It all works out to customers per square mile. If it is practical provide access to rural customers that might only have 100 customers per square mile then what happens in an urban area where there might be as many as a 500,000 people in a square mile.
You see... customers per square mile. That's the math.
As to Europe and Asia, the point remains that Russia is not a western country.
Never have been. And while they were offered into our club they have spat in our faces. So they remain outside.
As to Japan, my only point was that by any rational modern reinterpretation of definitions Japan would be more likely to be considered western then would Russia.
What does western mean to you?
Lets stop dicking around here and you just tell me what you think western means. I assure you that you're going to find your definition either so expansive that lots of countries you didn't think qualified do qualify or you're going to find Russia not on the list.
I did this calculation already... here is your chance to do it yourself and come to the same conclusion.
Right because if I say regulations need to be limited it means i really am advocating total anarchy with no government at all...
Which is MORONIC as if I suggested that because you wanted increased regulations that you wanted a police state.
Do you want a police state or was your argument stupid?
Pick one. Either it is valid to suggest you want a police state or it was foolish argument that you should apologize for making.
Explain why the government should do that.
By your same logic, the government could mow your lawn as well or paint your house. But I wouldn't hire them to do either.
Just because the government might be able to do something does not mean they should.
To the contrary, government should only do what they MUST do... if we put government in charge of everything they COULD do then they could chew your food for you as well.
I would just assume not have that happen though.
Explain why the government MUST do this... not whether or not they can.
You mistake philosophical arguments with intelligence.
You can be racist and bigoted and yet be intelligent.
Okay... it clear that you're not using the word "intelligence" correctly. That's fine.
I will give you a new term which you can substitute with something else later if you don't like the designation.
We'll call it quality X2B for now. Use that term and not intelligence unless you ACTUALLY mean intelligence in the way that Websters would mean intelligence.
Now, you say the Human race does not display quality X2B? Explain this quality. Define it.
If you cannot, then I would question your intelligence... as Websters defines it. There is no quality I understand that I cannot define. If you understand X2B, then you can define it.
Do so now.
The USPS is subsidized. If the stamps actually cost what the USPS costs then you'd be singing another tune.
Right, because I must be advocating literal anarchy if I oppose any increase in regulations what so ever.
That argument is moronic as if I suggested you were advocating a police state because you pushed for more regulations.
Can you put a block on the hyperbole please... it makes it impossible to have a rational discussion.
Enjoy having no progress of innovation on the internet ever again then...
Why do I need to explain them? Their existence argues for my solution more then any other.
The point is that competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
If you want a local ISP to be run by your city or town, I have NO problem with that. Just don't forbid competition or force people to belong or pay for your service.
If your service is good then by out competing your rivals you will thrive.
If your service sucks or is expensive then people will drop it.
That is all I want. The ability to fire bad providers and hire good ones. Nothing more.
Let the customer decide on an individual basis what is and is not acceptable. And give them enough options that those decisions matter.
You contradict yourself. What blocked google's fiber?
A court case? Therefore the government.
Therefore it is not lack of regulation that is stopping google's fiber, but bad regulation enforced by the government.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Just because you have a cable company and a DSL provider doesn't mean you have competition.
Most places in the US have that.
Duopoloies furthermore are quite common throughout the US. What I am talking about are multiple cable companies and multiple DSL providers and multiple fiber providers all offering last mile delivery.
most of the regulation we need is on state and cities not on the ISPs themselves. The issue is that the local governments are interfering with the ability of ISPs to run cable. The result is that only large ISPs can run cable. Which means that the only ISPs running cable to your door are large ISPs. Those ISPs generally enjoy regional monopolies and therefore do not compete. And it is that lack of competition that allows this situation to occur.
So yes... regulation... but not on the ISPs. Government must be restrained from fucking up the system. That is my point.