Note that I did not say that there are always two options for Internet connectivity. I noted that it is rare for one business entity to control both the 'telephone network' and the 'cable tv network' in a given area. Obviously, it is entirely possible that only one of these networks is available and/or able to offer high speed Internet access, and just as possible that neither is able to do so.
If the telephone network is available, one can certainly get at least some level of ordinary telephone service, and if the cable tv network is available, one can at least get cable tv service. While only one network may be available, I've never heard of one company controlling both networks in a given area, where both were available. (But it is possible for only one company to offer both phone and TV services over one type of network, in addition to Internet, even if the other type of network is not available)
I beleive the original article stated "People were 'lucky' if they were able to chose between one phone company and one cable company for Internet access" If it didnt, it should have.
Ok, not that complicated. Embarq is a phone company, they offer phone, DSL, and it sounds like they partner with either Dish Network or DirectTV for television. This does not make them a cable company. And note that, at least for TV, you could choose not to get TV service from them, and go with the competing "satellite" tv provider.
The phone company may offer TV services though a satellite affiliate but they don't control the cable tv network, it sounds like there just plain isn't one in that area.
DSL just plain sucks - you may want to consider (at least for Internet access) either a fixed WISP (You'll have to look in the local phonebook for local ISP's call them, and ask them if they offer fixed wireless or know of anyone in the area that does), or you might also consider a cell data service - either you can plug their PCMCIA card right into a laptop, or get a router that it plugs in which you can then connect to via Wifi or Ethernet. Neither is a cheap option, but if the DSL is dismal might be a slightly better choice.
For phone, with fixed wireless, phone service over VoIP might be an option. With the cell data service, getting cell voice service could be an option.
So you options are limited, and somewhat more tricky, and possibly more expensive, but you aren't completely locked in.
All that copper has long been paid for, in guaranteed profits, tax breaks, etc. As others have noted fiber was paid for too.
The right idea, would be *one* fiber infrastructure, not owned by any individual company, but where any individual or company could get an ATM channel configured between any two locations (with ownership and/or permission from the owners/residents of the property/building at both endpoints) at a regulated price. Or for a higher price, a separate strand (or pair) of fiber to light themselves at each end.
You are in an area where one company owns both the "cable TV" and "telephone" networks? That is unusual. Where are you (zipcode/areacode) and what company is it that controls both?
There are many areas where there is service from the "telephone" network, but not any from the "cable TV" network, (vica versa is rare, although lots of areas where there is copper for phone but its too far from the wirecenter for DSL) but I've never heard of both being available but controlled by the same company.
Im discounting the "TV over DSL", and "phone over cable" that the respective providers are offering these days -
I'm talking:
copper pair 'phone network' which can deliver:
-traditional phone
-DSL if you are close enough,
-TV-over-DSL type service (where offered);
and
coaxial cable 'cable network' which can deliver:
-tunable television channels directly to TF VHF inputs
-IP networking/Internet over DOCSIS modems
-VoIP telephone service (offered either by the cable company itself, or over the public backbone by Vonage and many others)
Trust me, if AT&T wanted to put copper (or fiber) in Verizon areas, or if Verizon wanted to run into AT&T areas, they could and would do it.
The problem is that they absolutely do not want to ever do that, and have an unspoken agreement not to compete directly for wired service in each other's service areas.
But yes, you idea of the copper infrastructure not being owned by one monopoly telco is a great idea. Google for 'structural seperation'. Sadly, big telecom will never let that happen and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it.
A mainstream media property actually "gets" something technical related to the Internet. Assuming the summary is right, they've got it dead-on.
The stimulus money should only be permitted to go to non-incumbent providers.
Alternatively, it should only be permitted to be used by a given provider to extend full wired (or fiber) service to geographic areas currently completely unserved by that provider (Eg AT&T would have to extend into non AT&T areas currently serviced by other telecoms, etc, ditto for cable)
And *that*, is not a problem with Linux. Its a problem with MS promulgating the use of its proprietary formats as 'standards', and with the manufacturers of devices assuming everyone has the same OS. This is a *symptom* of the sickness of a monoculture computing environment that only helps to sustain in.
That fact that people go to stores to purchase a box with bits in it (which is for one pariticular system that it is assumed everyone has), instead of looking in their systems 'install software' utility, ties in as well.
Its in response to all the people who proudly proclaim their ignorance of anything *but* Windows.
Or to MS itself, doing everything (legal and illegal, and morally corrupt) in their power to put as many barriers as possible in place to prevent people from knowing that anything else exists, or that they might want to review all the options and make an informed choice, as opposed to being blind cattle and just taking whatever they get. And then even then, staking the deck with as much networking power (by way of ensuring their network protocols, file formats, etc are absolutely incompatible with anything else) to try to force that choice even if someone tries to make it.
So yes, to those of us that value not only Freedom but a healthy IT infrastructure, it is in fact a (quite sane, but nonetheless evil) enemy to avoid at all costs.
That just sounds ludicrous to me, since the concept of users 'showing up' on a login screen is a relatively new concept, and pretty much for luser type users. Those of us that have been using multi-user systems where you have to log in to use them are entirely comfortable with the concept of typing in a username and password, and not needing a graphic avatar of ourselves to click on. In fact some of us find the "click on your avatar" concept quite silly. Can you imagine how full of crap that screen would be if there were a hundred, or even several dozen users that might need to log in?
The first time I heard 'facebook' I thought of type-A jocks and stuck-up 'faces' at college. And myspace is the same thing but for a younger set - airhead teenagers and their fanboi's (as well as the younger set of jocks and 'faces')
Additionally, the code on the VERY few myspace pages I have had the misfortune to have accessed proves that *no one* associated with myspace, either as a user or developer/admin, has ANY clue how to put together an html page that isn't painful to look at.
Free Software isn't *intended* to be a "business model" for corporations to get filthy rich selling copies of information that they produce for a nickel each.
And how are they going to differentiate tiny differences in network latency from the huge sluggishness anything running in java experiences?
Add to that the ultimate irony of java - it was intended as something that would run on anything anywhere, yet in order to make it run on whatever you happen to have you usually have to find, download, and install huge sets of libraries and compilers, find you've got the wrong version, download another huge set, and find it still doesnt work becuase of some bogus assumptions made by the original developer about what would be available. And (as already noted) even if you do manage to get it working, it runs like you've got an old 486 with 8M of ram.
I'd have never thought that many Dutch went out on the sea and forcibly seized ships and stole their cargo. Seems rather high, are you sure you got your numbers right? Or perhaps you are using the wrong word?
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as âoepiracy.â In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word âoepiracyâ to describe it. Neutral terms such as âoeunauthorized copyingâ (or âoeprohibited copyingâ for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.
And with that you suggest the best solution in the world - everyone, right now, call up your grandparents (if living) and ask how they get their TV, if they have cable or an antenna, and wether they've gotten a digital tuner box (or upgraded TV), if appropriate. If they are confused or not able to answer, go to their house and check for them.
Consider that most older people living in nursing homes, communities, etc, will have this taken care of for them.
They've only been advertising this *ON THE SAME ANALOG TV CHANNELS* that these "illiterate, retarded, demented, isolated, mentally unstable, very old, or any combination of the above" have been watching (presumably) for at least a good year now. *Repeatedly*, to the point where the ads are annoying almost to the point of physical pain. Anyone who hasnt got it by now, isnt going to get it in the few months delay they are trying to add. Hell even I got one of the damn boxes, just for the hell of it, just in case I ever decide to tune OTA TV, and I havent watched OTA TV or even had any equipment (eg antenna) with which I could do so for half a dozen years at least.
And what about people without TV's at all? They wont get the emergency broadcasts either? Maybe we need to allocate a few billion dollars so they can all get TV's. And of course then you have the Amish, with no electricity, which eliminates TVs *and* radios.
All that said, it wouldnt have hurt to include in the original plans, either a permissive period (eg you may stop analog bcast on X, but then on X+90 days you must stop) or even a 30 day repeating message "Due to TV station changes, your TV can no longer receive the program you were looking for. Please contact your local appliance or electronics retailer, or other person whom you trust to provide you technical advice, for further information"
Of course whats handy about wikipedia is that it almost always includes a good handful of links (and often meatspace citations as well) that makes it very easy to dig right into that additional research.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that I did not say that there are always two options for Internet connectivity. I noted that it is rare for one business entity to control both the 'telephone network' and the 'cable tv network' in a given area. Obviously, it is entirely possible that only one of these networks is available and/or able to offer high speed Internet access, and just as possible that neither is able to do so.
If the telephone network is available, one can certainly get at least some level of ordinary telephone service, and if the cable tv network is available, one can at least get cable tv service. While only one network may be available, I've never heard of one company controlling both networks in a given area, where both were available. (But it is possible for only one company to offer both phone and TV services over one type of network, in addition to Internet, even if the other type of network is not available)
I beleive the original article stated "People were 'lucky' if they were able to chose between one phone company and one cable company for Internet access" If it didnt, it should have.
Ok, not that complicated. Embarq is a phone company, they offer phone, DSL, and it sounds like they partner with either Dish Network or DirectTV for television. This does not make them a cable company. And note that, at least for TV, you could choose not to get TV service from them, and go with the competing "satellite" tv provider.
The phone company may offer TV services though a satellite affiliate but they don't control the cable tv network, it sounds like there just plain isn't one in that area.
DSL just plain sucks - you may want to consider (at least for Internet access) either a fixed WISP (You'll have to look in the local phonebook for local ISP's call them, and ask them if they offer fixed wireless or know of anyone in the area that does), or you might also consider a cell data service - either you can plug their PCMCIA card right into a laptop, or get a router that it plugs in which you can then connect to via Wifi or Ethernet. Neither is a cheap option, but if the DSL is dismal might be a slightly better choice.
For phone, with fixed wireless, phone service over VoIP might be an option. With the cell data service, getting cell voice service could be an option.
So you options are limited, and somewhat more tricky, and possibly more expensive, but you aren't completely locked in.
All that copper has long been paid for, in guaranteed profits, tax breaks, etc. As others have noted fiber was paid for too.
The right idea, would be *one* fiber infrastructure, not owned by any individual company, but where any individual or company could get an ATM channel configured between any two locations (with ownership and/or permission from the owners/residents of the property/building at both endpoints) at a regulated price. Or for a higher price, a separate strand (or pair) of fiber to light themselves at each end.
You are in an area where one company owns both the "cable TV" and "telephone" networks? That is unusual. Where are you (zipcode/areacode) and what company is it that controls both?
There are many areas where there is service from the "telephone" network, but not any from the "cable TV" network, (vica versa is rare, although lots of areas where there is copper for phone but its too far from the wirecenter for DSL) but I've never heard of both being available but controlled by the same company.
Im discounting the "TV over DSL", and "phone over cable" that the respective providers are offering these days -
I'm talking:
copper pair 'phone network' which can deliver:
-traditional phone
-DSL if you are close enough,
-TV-over-DSL type service (where offered);
and
coaxial cable 'cable network' which can deliver:
-tunable television channels directly to TF VHF inputs
-IP networking/Internet over DOCSIS modems
-VoIP telephone service (offered either by the cable company itself, or over the public backbone by Vonage and many others)
Actually that only applied to cable.
Trust me, if AT&T wanted to put copper (or fiber) in Verizon areas, or if Verizon wanted to run into AT&T areas, they could and would do it.
The problem is that they absolutely do not want to ever do that, and have an unspoken agreement not to compete directly for wired service in each other's service areas.
But yes, you idea of the copper infrastructure not being owned by one monopoly telco is a great idea. Google for 'structural seperation'. Sadly, big telecom will never let that happen and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it.
A mainstream media property actually "gets" something technical related to the Internet. Assuming the summary is right, they've got it dead-on.
The stimulus money should only be permitted to go to non-incumbent providers.
Alternatively, it should only be permitted to be used by a given provider to extend full wired (or fiber) service to geographic areas currently completely unserved by that provider (Eg AT&T would have to extend into non AT&T areas currently serviced by other telecoms, etc, ditto for cable)
And *that*, is not a problem with Linux. Its a problem with MS promulgating the use of its proprietary formats as 'standards', and with the manufacturers of devices assuming everyone has the same OS. This is a *symptom* of the sickness of a monoculture computing environment that only helps to sustain in.
That fact that people go to stores to purchase a box with bits in it (which is for one pariticular system that it is assumed everyone has), instead of looking in their systems 'install software' utility, ties in as well.
Its in response to all the people who proudly proclaim their ignorance of anything *but* Windows.
Or to MS itself, doing everything (legal and illegal, and morally corrupt) in their power to put as many barriers as possible in place to prevent people from knowing that anything else exists, or that they might want to review all the options and make an informed choice, as opposed to being blind cattle and just taking whatever they get. And then even then, staking the deck with as much networking power (by way of ensuring their network protocols, file formats, etc are absolutely incompatible with anything else) to try to force that choice even if someone tries to make it.
So yes, to those of us that value not only Freedom but a healthy IT infrastructure, it is in fact a (quite sane, but nonetheless evil) enemy to avoid at all costs.
" .. easy to make a user *not* show up?"
That just sounds ludicrous to me, since the concept of users 'showing up' on a login screen is a relatively new concept, and pretty much for luser type users. Those of us that have been using multi-user systems where you have to log in to use them are entirely comfortable with the concept of typing in a username and password, and not needing a graphic avatar of ourselves to click on. In fact some of us find the "click on your avatar" concept quite silly. Can you imagine how full of crap that screen would be if there were a hundred, or even several dozen users that might need to log in?
I don't understand, why was Budweiser's commercial loaded on a ship off the Somali coast? And how much ransom did the pirates want for it?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
The first time I heard 'facebook' I thought of type-A jocks and stuck-up 'faces' at college. And myspace is the same thing but for a younger set - airhead teenagers and their fanboi's (as well as the younger set of jocks and 'faces')
Additionally, the code on the VERY few myspace pages I have had the misfortune to have accessed proves that *no one* associated with myspace, either as a user or developer/admin, has ANY clue how to put together an html page that isn't painful to look at.
Free Software isn't *intended* to be a "business model" for corporations to get filthy rich selling copies of information that they produce for a nickel each.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Some bulbs do show (in smaller print) what the lumen output is. Many, of course, do not.
I'm sure they'll stop using 'watts' to sell bulbs just as soon as vacuum cleaners stop being sold on 'amps'.
"Hey this vacuum that 'has' 15 amps must be better than that one that only 'has' 12 amps!" - No moron, it will just use electricity faster.
No one can possibly be that stupid, can they? That has got to be a hoax site.
And how are they going to differentiate tiny differences in network latency from the huge sluggishness anything running in java experiences?
Add to that the ultimate irony of java - it was intended as something that would run on anything anywhere, yet in order to make it run on whatever you happen to have you usually have to find, download, and install huge sets of libraries and compilers, find you've got the wrong version, download another huge set, and find it still doesnt work becuase of some bogus assumptions made by the original developer about what would be available. And (as already noted) even if you do manage to get it working, it runs like you've got an old 486 with 8M of ram.
java - no thanks.
I'd have never thought that many Dutch went out on the sea and forcibly seized ships and stole their cargo. Seems rather high, are you sure you got your numbers right? Or perhaps you are using the wrong word?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
Given that there is some very real *piracy* occurring in the seas near Somalia, perhaps this might be a good time for this note.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
âoePiracyâ
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as âoepiracy.â In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word âoepiracyâ to describe it. Neutral terms such as âoeunauthorized copyingâ (or âoeprohibited copyingâ for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.
that both of those companies are already on my 'list of companies to never do business with' anyway.
And with that you suggest the best solution in the world - everyone, right now, call up your grandparents (if living) and ask how they get their TV, if they have cable or an antenna, and wether they've gotten a digital tuner box (or upgraded TV), if appropriate. If they are confused or not able to answer, go to their house and check for them.
Consider that most older people living in nursing homes, communities, etc, will have this taken care of for them.
They've only been advertising this *ON THE SAME ANALOG TV CHANNELS* that these "illiterate, retarded, demented, isolated, mentally unstable, very old, or any combination of the above" have been watching (presumably) for at least a good year now. *Repeatedly*, to the point where the ads are annoying almost to the point of physical pain. Anyone who hasnt got it by now, isnt going to get it in the few months delay they are trying to add. Hell even I got one of the damn boxes, just for the hell of it, just in case I ever decide to tune OTA TV, and I havent watched OTA TV or even had any equipment (eg antenna) with which I could do so for half a dozen years at least.
And what about people without TV's at all? They wont get the emergency broadcasts either? Maybe we need to allocate a few billion dollars so they can all get TV's. And of course then you have the Amish, with no electricity, which eliminates TVs *and* radios.
All that said, it wouldnt have hurt to include in the original plans, either a permissive period (eg you may stop analog bcast on X, but then on X+90 days you must stop) or even a 30 day repeating message "Due to TV station changes, your TV can no longer receive the program you were looking for. Please contact your local appliance or electronics retailer, or other person whom you trust to provide you technical advice, for further information"
People who are either stupid, obstinate, or uninformed enough to *STILL* use IE (even on Windows) should be shunned from everything on the web.
Did they at least include a link to download Firefox, so at least the latter (uninformed) could be helped?
Of course whats handy about wikipedia is that it almost always includes a good handful of links (and often meatspace citations as well) that makes it very easy to dig right into that additional research.
Anyone that willingly continues to use it for anything except as a non-Internet connected game machine deserves whatever they get.
The extremists want an outright ban even on stem cell research that uses embryos that would otherwise be DISCARDED
Ideally, fill the entire drive with porn.
Unless of course its the porn you wanted to hide in the first place, in which case overwrite the entire drive with /. articles.
Unless of course its the fact that you are a geek (nerd/etc) that you wanted to hide, in which case overwrite the drive with sports trivia.
Unless of course... you get the idea.