Shit, hit the wrong button. Here is the continuation.
The result has been that while there was no viable competition, telcos dragged their feet horribly. As soon as some competition appeared they:
1. Dragged out the regulatory process as long as possible
2. Rolled out as fast as they could
3. Kept local loop and wholesale prices high, while...
4.... Keeping consumer retail prices low (lower than wholesale, btw)
Ah-ha! That last one is the clincher. The incumbent ensures that it is unprofitable for attackers to enter the market. For the moment we get great prices, but in the long run, we as consumers lose out.
High broadband prices are your friend (for the moment). They mean that providing broadband will be profitable for smaller providers until such time as the huge incumbent advantages can be erased and competition can take place on a reasonably level playing field.
For your further edification (about the European situation), I would check out the following sources: ECTA Scorecard (LLU), OECD (the broadband development document), and "Seventh Report on the Implementation of Telecommunications Regulatory Package" from the European Commision (It's out there somewhere, I just don't have the link.) These are pretty heavy reading, but if you are actually interested in how the regulatory situation evolves, they are informative (especially the last one).
prices will eventually rise as businesses that sell below cost begin to fail
...
But critically, we will observe this fair (to consumers) balancing only if there is ample competition to cut monopolistic price bloat.
Careful. It is the first that is driving the second - at least in CA and Europe (I don't know squat about the US market.) Right now, both in the US and in most of Europe broadband is sold at or (more frequently) below cost by the incumbent. The dynamics works like this (DSL example - with a few exceptions, DSL is more prevalent in most of Europe):
1. When everything is considered (including service cannibalisation) DSL roll-out is expected to be unprofitable to a telco incumbent (NPV=0)
2. However, losing customers to a broadband attacker is loss-making (NPV0)
3. Hence, as a business, an incumbent telco does not want to provide broadband until it must, and when forced to by the presence of competition, it will use all possible incumbent advantages to gain and keep market share
The result has been that while there was no viable competition, telcos dragged their feet horribly. As soon as some competition appeared they:
Also, I know how hard it was to get an error on my credit report erased. I imagine maintaining the integrity of this would be a mess.
Absolutely right. The last time I tried to order a credit statement over the web, I was challenged to report my house mortgage payment.
Hrm. What house?
Well, I had to do the transaction the old fashioned way via mail, not to mention there was the process of explaining to them that I had no house, nor a car loan, and did not live in Kentucky or wherever it was...
There are just not enough quality checks in the current US system to make such things work. That doesn't mean that it can't work, however. Other countries already have much more comprehensive personal ID systems in place, e.g. Sweden. Your one ID number is then keyed to information about your residence, your taxes, your medical background, your banking, etc. You just need to ask yourself whether you trust the people who handle that information. In Sweden there are significant laws governing who can get what data and how they can act on it, and the populace seems generally OK with that.
Most of the time the system is actually pretty convenient. You move, report your new address to the tax authorities, and the bank, credit card companies, etc. figure out where you have gone without having to file official change of address info with each. Bad if you are running from debts, good if you just don't have the time to do all that stuff. Again it comes to trust - are you so afraid of something that you feel you need to be able to suddenly disappear? that society is so unresponsive that it has not given you some way to fix whatever it is that makes you want to disappear?
I would say that if this is the case, you (as a society) have more problems than whether or not one more database is integrated.
The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars
Really this depends heavily on whether you think that the service/infrastructure in question is important enough to the national welfare that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure that there is universal coverage. Companies are driven by the profit motive and as such are not likely to ensure service in less attractive areas. A government can ensure that even less lucrative customers can access the essential service. Now, there are certainly several ways to go about doing this, but government ownership is not the evil you make it out to be. In the US, the public roads are a case example. They are generally government owned (though not always operated) and they are some of the best road systems on which I have ever driven. A contrasting example is the stimulus of universal telephony coverage as mandated in '34. There the US government basically regulated the rural telephone system into existence. (I would also suggest the school system as an example of a government owned facility - there are several places in the world where the national school system works quite well.)
Back to the issue of broadband. What you find is that of the countries that lead in broadband penetration (South Korea, Singapore, Canada) the top two have had significant involvement by the government in driving the buildout. In Singapore the government actually did the backbone buildout and later privatized it. In Europe, Sweden is a broadband leader, and the government, both national and local, has taken an extremely active roll in ensuring broadband growth. There are subsidies to the infrastructure players and municipally owned networks. (Though they should have given Telia a firm kick in the ass a little earlier, IMHO)
The problem is that, as usual, the real situation lies somewhere in between the two extreme views being put forth here.
Morality can neither be completely relative nor completely fixed. There are morals to which most people would ascibe (rape is bad), there are those on which thinking people can disagree (euthanasia or abortion is bad), and things that most people would agree is not a moral question at all (shoes in the house - actually not that uncommon in Swedish households if you happen to be a guest...) I would posit that slavery is universally bad. I would further posit that the plight of women in Afghanistan consitutes slavery.
The problem here is that we tend to frame the discussion of the abridgement of women's rights as an issue of "culture" and not one of human rights. What would be unthinkable to support if the distinction were one of race, we tacitly accept if it is a function of gender. Try this on for size - "All blacks may not drive, hold jobs, visit doctors, or appear in public without the presence of white keeper. When in public they may not show their faces, nor any other body part, save the hands. Blacks may not be educated. Failure to follow these rules will result in physical punishment or death." Worse than apartheid, frankly, which received significant world condemnation. Yet, now if we replace black/white with woman/man, it somehow becomes a cultural issue, and not a moral issue on which all can agree. I personally find that very sad.
The point on the American Cultural/Economic Hegemony (tm) angle is a red herring. Independent of what the US does, it is still our obligation to comment and act upon clear issues of moral right or wrong (as I would say slavery is, whether of blacks or women). We can also have an opinion on whether the actions we or others take in response to moral outrages is appropriate. That is the right forum for discussion the US activities in abroad.
BTW, you mention that forcing a way of life on someone else is wrong. I agree wholeheartedly - but I include the women as well. If I could truly know that every Afghani woman wanted that life, I would be satisfied. Absent clear evidence, however, I say "Give them the freedom to choose!" If they then choose the life behind the veil, so be it.
On the other hand, when I moved to Sweden, the one thing that I really missed was NPR - Car Talk, All Things Considered (maybe not Fresh Air). My salvation was the internet. I can get all that content that I loved even when abroad. (For generic dance, classical, etc., the local selection is as good as any.)
The other reason listening on the internet is great is that I don't have to be so time sensitive. There are enough public radio stations that stream their programs that I can usually find someone transmitting at reasonable times. Missed it in Chicago? No problem, I can pick it up from Seattle.
Now my only problem is figuring out which station should get my membership money...
The major developments of the 1000 years preceding the steam engine were the horse-collar, some tricks for making steel in small quantities, stirrups, mechanical clocks, and some improvements in plows. That's about it.
Hmmm... the printing press? I thought that was pretty big.
Not to mention that in some countries (e.g. here in Sweden) there is significant power deregulation and competition. (And it is generally functional, unlike the California situation.)
I can choose amongst several power companies for my power service. What remains monopolized is the ownership of the actual power lines - but this is a perfect example of a "natural monopoly" It simply wouldn't make sense to overbuild the power line network.
Now, the real question is if the national laws that require giving line access for power transmission also will give access for data transmission. Otherwise Sydkraft will only be able to deliver this service where they have lines.
Then, you know, our DSL service is supposed to be competitive too, but Telia is dragging out the process of handing out access in a most disgraceful way... If a similar process plays out on the power lines, competition may be a long time coming.
I'm pretty sure the check-in people wont know what the heck to do if they saw a command prompt.. "Uhh theres a word.. 'bash' with an pound sign next to it.. whats that mean?"
Hmmm... I've traveled a lot in Europe (less in the US) and I'll tell you this -- the systems that they have, both at check-in as well as at the travel agencies, are less user-friendly and more arcane than linux. If they can be trained to use the current systems, they can be trained to type checkin_program_start or whatever at the bash prompt.
Slashdot Mirror
Shit, hit the wrong button. Here is the continuation.
... Keeping consumer retail prices low (lower than wholesale, btw)
The result has been that while there was no viable competition, telcos dragged their feet horribly. As soon as some competition appeared they:
1. Dragged out the regulatory process as long as possible
2. Rolled out as fast as they could
3. Kept local loop and wholesale prices high, while...
4.
Ah-ha! That last one is the clincher. The incumbent ensures that it is unprofitable for attackers to enter the market. For the moment we get great prices, but in the long run, we as consumers lose out.
High broadband prices are your friend (for the moment). They mean that providing broadband will be profitable for smaller providers until such time as the huge incumbent advantages can be erased and competition can take place on a reasonably level playing field.
For your further edification (about the European situation), I would check out the following sources: ECTA Scorecard (LLU), OECD (the broadband development document), and "Seventh Report on the Implementation of Telecommunications Regulatory Package" from the European Commision (It's out there somewhere, I just don't have the link.) These are pretty heavy reading, but if you are actually interested in how the regulatory situation evolves, they are informative (especially the last one).
...
But critically, we will observe this fair (to consumers) balancing only if there is ample competition to cut monopolistic price bloat.
Careful. It is the first that is driving the second - at least in CA and Europe (I don't know squat about the US market.) Right now, both in the US and in most of Europe broadband is sold at or (more frequently) below cost by the incumbent. The dynamics works like this (DSL example - with a few exceptions, DSL is more prevalent in most of Europe):
1. When everything is considered (including service cannibalisation) DSL roll-out is expected to be unprofitable to a telco incumbent (NPV=0)
2. However, losing customers to a broadband attacker is loss-making (NPV0)
3. Hence, as a business, an incumbent telco does not want to provide broadband until it must, and when forced to by the presence of competition, it will use all possible incumbent advantages to gain and keep market share
The result has been that while there was no viable competition, telcos dragged their feet horribly. As soon as some competition appeared they:
You are a registered business?
You don't have a registered WindowsXX (Office, etc.) license?
=> You are obviously a pirate!
The logic is quite simple. (and scary)
It took me most of the article to find this, as I was curious as to the meaning ;)
Lagom is how Baby Bear prefers it.
Also, I know how hard it was to get an error on my credit report erased. I imagine maintaining the integrity of this would be a mess.
Absolutely right. The last time I tried to order a credit statement over the web, I was challenged to report my house mortgage payment.
Hrm. What house?
Well, I had to do the transaction the old fashioned way via mail, not to mention there was the process of explaining to them that I had no house, nor a car loan, and did not live in Kentucky or wherever it was...
There are just not enough quality checks in the current US system to make such things work. That doesn't mean that it can't work, however. Other countries already have much more comprehensive personal ID systems in place, e.g. Sweden. Your one ID number is then keyed to information about your residence, your taxes, your medical background, your banking, etc. You just need to ask yourself whether you trust the people who handle that information. In Sweden there are significant laws governing who can get what data and how they can act on it, and the populace seems generally OK with that.
Most of the time the system is actually pretty convenient. You move, report your new address to the tax authorities, and the bank, credit card companies, etc. figure out where you have gone without having to file official change of address info with each. Bad if you are running from debts, good if you just don't have the time to do all that stuff. Again it comes to trust - are you so afraid of something that you feel you need to be able to suddenly disappear? that society is so unresponsive that it has not given you some way to fix whatever it is that makes you want to disappear?
I would say that if this is the case, you (as a society) have more problems than whether or not one more database is integrated.
The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars
Really this depends heavily on whether you think that the service/infrastructure in question is important enough to the national welfare that it is in the nation's best interest to ensure that there is universal coverage. Companies are driven by the profit motive and as such are not likely to ensure service in less attractive areas. A government can ensure that even less lucrative customers can access the essential service. Now, there are certainly several ways to go about doing this, but government ownership is not the evil you make it out to be. In the US, the public roads are a case example. They are generally government owned (though not always operated) and they are some of the best road systems on which I have ever driven. A contrasting example is the stimulus of universal telephony coverage as mandated in '34. There the US government basically regulated the rural telephone system into existence. (I would also suggest the school system as an example of a government owned facility - there are several places in the world where the national school system works quite well.)
Back to the issue of broadband. What you find is that of the countries that lead in broadband penetration (South Korea, Singapore, Canada) the top two have had significant involvement by the government in driving the buildout. In Singapore the government actually did the backbone buildout and later privatized it. In Europe, Sweden is a broadband leader, and the government, both national and local, has taken an extremely active roll in ensuring broadband growth. There are subsidies to the infrastructure players and municipally owned networks. (Though they should have given Telia a firm kick in the ass a little earlier, IMHO)
For a good read on this topic, try the new OECD broadband report
The problem is that, as usual, the real situation lies somewhere in between the two extreme views being put forth here.
Morality can neither be completely relative nor completely fixed. There are morals to which most people would ascibe (rape is bad), there are those on which thinking people can disagree (euthanasia or abortion is bad), and things that most people would agree is not a moral question at all (shoes in the house - actually not that uncommon in Swedish households if you happen to be a guest...) I would posit that slavery is universally bad. I would further posit that the plight of women in Afghanistan consitutes slavery.
The problem here is that we tend to frame the discussion of the abridgement of women's rights as an issue of "culture" and not one of human rights. What would be unthinkable to support if the distinction were one of race, we tacitly accept if it is a function of gender. Try this on for size - "All blacks may not drive, hold jobs, visit doctors, or appear in public without the presence of white keeper. When in public they may not show their faces, nor any other body part, save the hands. Blacks may not be educated. Failure to follow these rules will result in physical punishment or death." Worse than apartheid, frankly, which received significant world condemnation. Yet, now if we replace black/white with woman/man, it somehow becomes a cultural issue, and not a moral issue on which all can agree. I personally find that very sad.
The point on the American Cultural/Economic Hegemony (tm) angle is a red herring. Independent of what the US does, it is still our obligation to comment and act upon clear issues of moral right or wrong (as I would say slavery is, whether of blacks or women). We can also have an opinion on whether the actions we or others take in response to moral outrages is appropriate. That is the right forum for discussion the US activities in abroad.
BTW, you mention that forcing a way of life on someone else is wrong. I agree wholeheartedly - but I include the women as well. If I could truly know that every Afghani woman wanted that life, I would be satisfied. Absent clear evidence, however, I say "Give them the freedom to choose!" If they then choose the life behind the veil, so be it.
On the other hand, when I moved to Sweden, the one thing that I really missed was NPR - Car Talk, All Things Considered (maybe not Fresh Air). My salvation was the internet. I can get all that content that I loved even when abroad. (For generic dance, classical, etc., the local selection is as good as any.)
The other reason listening on the internet is great is that I don't have to be so time sensitive. There are enough public radio stations that stream their programs that I can usually find someone transmitting at reasonable times. Missed it in Chicago? No problem, I can pick it up from Seattle.
Now my only problem is figuring out which station should get my membership money...
Hmmm... the printing press? I thought that was pretty big.
Not to mention that in some countries (e.g. here in Sweden) there is significant power deregulation and competition. (And it is generally functional, unlike the California situation.)
I can choose amongst several power companies for my power service. What remains monopolized is the ownership of the actual power lines - but this is a perfect example of a "natural monopoly" It simply wouldn't make sense to overbuild the power line network.
Now, the real question is if the national laws that require giving line access for power transmission also will give access for data transmission. Otherwise Sydkraft will only be able to deliver this service where they have lines.
Then, you know, our DSL service is supposed to be competitive too, but Telia is dragging out the process of handing out access in a most disgraceful way... If a similar process plays out on the power lines, competition may be a long time coming.
Hmmm... I've traveled a lot in Europe (less in the US) and I'll tell you this -- the systems that they have, both at check-in as well as at the travel agencies, are less user-friendly and more arcane than linux. If they can be trained to use the current systems, they can be trained to type checkin_program_start or whatever at the bash prompt.
Not everyone who doesn't use linux is an idiot.