I'm not a big fan of the federal government abusing the interstate commerce clause but this seems like a case where it likely applies..
I don't like the dealer laws either, but I can't be comfortable in setting the threshold of federal commerce intrusion on an issue by issue basis to suit my personal preference. States are already too encumbered. JMHO.
That's the biggest problem/misconception about the whole debate. These laws were put in place well before Tesla ever existed. Any car company, regardless of name or technology, has always had to deal them. Direct sales itself is the threat. If people want change, they need to get off of the notion that this is about Tesla and learn a little more of the history behind the law. They need to listen carefully to those who make arguments in favor of these laws. Then you can make a rational case against it. Arguing it in the name of Tesla is a waste of air and a sign of, how should I put it kindly, a lack of insight.
This is a passionate debate on Slashdot, but the average Joe could care less. Now, if the average Joe could be shown the benefits of buying his gas powered car, or any vehicle today, via direct sales, and there was a campaign to make that case, then progress on change might be made. Unfortunately, a majority of those passionate for change do little more that post on blogs. Based on that, I doubt much will happen.
Why is this just a problem now? People have been buying cars under this model for quite some time. The drive train technology makes no difference. People need to recognize that, and make the fight technology neutral, before they'll get anything changed.
Who cares what the WH thinks? Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want. Its not like you can't go to another state to make the purchase, that's just lost tax revenue for the restricting states. Eventually, it will get worked out. Meanwhile,today, if you can afford a $90,000 car, I doubt there are any real impediments to your making that purchase.
Excellent points. Unfortunately, the US Gov is too weak-willed to do anything big anymore. We are no longer prepared to handle a large demand increase, as reserve capacity is at historical lows. I guess we can just sit out the next global economic boom.
This seems to further re-affirm the court's position (agree with it or not) that Aereo is a cable company even though they use the internet for transfer. It will be interesting to see if this opens the door for others who want to do similar. It seems that it would be quite easy to put up a few antennas and servers and create your own local cable company with PC, android and IOS apps on the client end, no need for set top boxes. If enough of these ventures sprang up, they could eventually consolidate and offer some of their own channels/content. A step toward true Ala-cart.
I'd also say that many (not all) people prefer "looking green" to "being green". A solar panel on the roof makes you "green" regardless of your actual energy use.
This discussion illustrates the human and societal behavior factors that should be considered when looking for solutions to global CO2 reduction. People do not want to significantly change their energy consumption habits. Economics is the prime driver, but we want to keep power cost low as that benefits the economy as a whole. Solutions exist that don't require great behavioral changes.
If you look at the behavior of the US as a country in the frame of this discussion, it exposes the fallacies with solar PV subsidies. A lot of people live in apartments and condominiums, which is in general the most energy efficient means of housing. Why should the tax dollars of those individuals go to pay the power bills of homeowners who are living in an inherently less energy efficient manner? a large number of people whose houses do not have sufficient solar exposure to justify PV installation are also eliminated from the giveaway. Those without sufficient means cannot participate without going further into debt.
Energy subsidies should benefit 'the most' and not 'the few'. Return on investment in the form of CO2 reduction and overall cost impact from a composite system standpoint should be another determining factor in deciding our energy source mix for the future. Then we'll get to real improvements in our energy usage as a nation, and not have to squabble about individuals.
I agree on the $5 price point. I'd pay a bit more to get a high quality, on demand showing of a good recent picture, particularly if I could get subsequent viewing for less.
One factor that is often overlooked is the "borrowing" factor. I borrow movies from friends and loan mine out all the time. When DVDs were still new and copying was rare, borrowing, trading, and used disc sales made up a major part of the viewing source. None of those provided revenue back to the studio.
The claim seems to be that "box office" revenue is not significantly impacted, but ignores subsequent sale and rental revenues. Its obvious that the latter is where piracy has the most impact as the 'theater experience' is still unique. Maybe that is discussed more the TFA, but its quite lengthy for me to get through. Ignoring that part of the picture makes the conclusion a bit toothless.
The first rule of Global Warming is: Every impact is negative.
The second rule of Global Warming is: Every impact is negative.
Third rule of Global Warming: If someone pauses, roll eyes, questions, or in any way doubts any claims or speculations related to Global Warming, its causes or its impacts, they are to be labeled as deniers.
Fourth rule of Climate Change: We can change the name whenever we want.
Fifth rule of Climate Change: Solutions do not need to consider cost or economic impact, human or societal behaviors, or likelihood of success domestically or internationally.
They could still only deliver local OTA stations, and could not send them out of region. Making the stations available out of region would require a negotiated contract with the network/station.
If they are considered a cable company, then they won't need all those antennas. That should reduce their operating cost, and maybe offset some of the new re-transmission costs.
Nobody will dispute that fiber to the house is best. The question is what costs less to build out quickly? Boxes connected to existing copper, or fiber installation through each yard.
If you can connect a hundred meters, in many neighborhoods you may be able to connect a dozen homes to one box. From there, it would be fiber. Laying fiber along a right of way is quite a lot easier and cheaper than dealing with individual homeowners and trenching in yards under driveways, fences, etc.
Any opportunity for competition to cable is welcome, so I hope they can get this or similar tech to market. Sounds like they've got a way to go.
The difference is not internet service, but "cable TV". If you can employ an existing infrastructure to deliver TV channel packages, then there is finally a path for competition in many places where coaxial has it locked up.
Except that it was never lost, and you'll find that not in the summary, but midway through TFA where it says they just entered it in the wrong column on a spreadsheet . Disaster averted. Spreadsheets are actually tools of terror!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a big fan of the federal government abusing the interstate commerce clause but this seems like a case where it likely applies..
I don't like the dealer laws either, but I can't be comfortable in setting the threshold of federal commerce intrusion on an issue by issue basis to suit my personal preference. States are already too encumbered. JMHO.
Traditional car companies see Tesla as a threat..
That's the biggest problem/misconception about the whole debate. These laws were put in place well before Tesla ever existed. Any car company, regardless of name or technology, has always had to deal them. Direct sales itself is the threat. If people want change, they need to get off of the notion that this is about Tesla and learn a little more of the history behind the law. They need to listen carefully to those who make arguments in favor of these laws. Then you can make a rational case against it. Arguing it in the name of Tesla is a waste of air and a sign of, how should I put it kindly, a lack of insight.
This is a passionate debate on Slashdot, but the average Joe could care less. Now, if the average Joe could be shown the benefits of buying his gas powered car, or any vehicle today, via direct sales, and there was a campaign to make that case, then progress on change might be made. Unfortunately, a majority of those passionate for change do little more that post on blogs. Based on that, I doubt much will happen.
Why is this just a problem now? People have been buying cars under this model for quite some time. The drive train technology makes no difference. People need to recognize that, and make the fight technology neutral, before they'll get anything changed.
True, I forgot about the state tax adjustment. Thanks
Who cares what the WH thinks? Its State Law. Let the voters in each state decide what they want. Its not like you can't go to another state to make the purchase, that's just lost tax revenue for the restricting states. Eventually, it will get worked out. Meanwhile,today, if you can afford a $90,000 car, I doubt there are any real impediments to your making that purchase.
Excellent points. Unfortunately, the US Gov is too weak-willed to do anything big anymore. We are no longer prepared to handle a large demand increase, as reserve capacity is at historical lows. I guess we can just sit out the next global economic boom.
Some don't agree. I don't fully agree. My point was that it doesn't matter fro this discussion. But alas, we are redirected back to it anyway.
This seems to further re-affirm the court's position (agree with it or not) that Aereo is a cable company even though they use the internet for transfer. It will be interesting to see if this opens the door for others who want to do similar. It seems that it would be quite easy to put up a few antennas and servers and create your own local cable company with PC, android and IOS apps on the client end, no need for set top boxes. If enough of these ventures sprang up, they could eventually consolidate and offer some of their own channels/content. A step toward true Ala-cart.
I'd also say that many (not all) people prefer "looking green" to "being green". A solar panel on the roof makes you "green" regardless of your actual energy use.
This discussion illustrates the human and societal behavior factors that should be considered when looking for solutions to global CO2 reduction. People do not want to significantly change their energy consumption habits. Economics is the prime driver, but we want to keep power cost low as that benefits the economy as a whole. Solutions exist that don't require great behavioral changes.
If you look at the behavior of the US as a country in the frame of this discussion, it exposes the fallacies with solar PV subsidies. A lot of people live in apartments and condominiums, which is in general the most energy efficient means of housing. Why should the tax dollars of those individuals go to pay the power bills of homeowners who are living in an inherently less energy efficient manner? a large number of people whose houses do not have sufficient solar exposure to justify PV installation are also eliminated from the giveaway. Those without sufficient means cannot participate without going further into debt.
Energy subsidies should benefit 'the most' and not 'the few'. Return on investment in the form of CO2 reduction and overall cost impact from a composite system standpoint should be another determining factor in deciding our energy source mix for the future. Then we'll get to real improvements in our energy usage as a nation, and not have to squabble about individuals.
Of the suggestion uses, this one stands out the most.
3D printer sales will be flat.
I agree on the $5 price point. I'd pay a bit more to get a high quality, on demand showing of a good recent picture, particularly if I could get subsequent viewing for less.
One factor that is often overlooked is the "borrowing" factor. I borrow movies from friends and loan mine out all the time. When DVDs were still new and copying was rare, borrowing, trading, and used disc sales made up a major part of the viewing source. None of those provided revenue back to the studio.
The claim seems to be that "box office" revenue is not significantly impacted, but ignores subsequent sale and rental revenues. Its obvious that the latter is where piracy has the most impact as the 'theater experience' is still unique. Maybe that is discussed more the TFA, but its quite lengthy for me to get through. Ignoring that part of the picture makes the conclusion a bit toothless.
Folks around here have no sense of humor. Get over it.
The first rule of Global Warming is: Every impact is negative.
The second rule of Global Warming is: Every impact is negative.
Third rule of Global Warming: If someone pauses, roll eyes, questions, or in any way doubts any claims or speculations related to Global Warming, its causes or its impacts, they are to be labeled as deniers.
Fourth rule of Climate Change: We can change the name whenever we want.
Fifth rule of Climate Change: Solutions do not need to consider cost or economic impact, human or societal behaviors, or likelihood of success domestically or internationally.
I think the author messed up. Improved durability, but not capacity.
Its certainly a possibility, and probably another reason its scaring the big boys.
They could still only deliver local OTA stations, and could not send them out of region. Making the stations available out of region would require a negotiated contract with the network/station.
If they are considered a cable company, then they won't need all those antennas. That should reduce their operating cost, and maybe offset some of the new re-transmission costs.
The networks would love to end free OTA broadcasting, anything that makes it harder to do so is an enemy of the networks.
Nobody will dispute that fiber to the house is best. The question is what costs less to build out quickly? Boxes connected to existing copper, or fiber installation through each yard.
If you can connect a hundred meters, in many neighborhoods you may be able to connect a dozen homes to one box. From there, it would be fiber. Laying fiber along a right of way is quite a lot easier and cheaper than dealing with individual homeowners and trenching in yards under driveways, fences, etc.
Any opportunity for competition to cable is welcome, so I hope they can get this or similar tech to market. Sounds like they've got a way to go.
The difference is not internet service, but "cable TV". If you can employ an existing infrastructure to deliver TV channel packages, then there is finally a path for competition in many places where coaxial has it locked up.
Yes, I think the article would more aptly be entitled, "DHS Releases Documents that Weren't Requested".
Except that it was never lost, and you'll find that not in the summary, but midway through TFA where it says they just entered it in the wrong column on a spreadsheet . Disaster averted. Spreadsheets are actually tools of terror!