Id always delivers on their promise to do something new - every few years they have released a brand-new FPS game engine. However many people are looking for something completely different in terms of game design, not just engine design. In order to accomplish this id needs to employ more creative game designers with radically different ideas.
id hasn't really had a creative/visionary designer since the split with Romero.
If you'd like to disagree with that I think it could be an interesting discussion. But simply stating that it's not a lifestyle choice doesn't make it so.
In all honesty I do disagree. I also disagree about how interesting that argument would be..
Your "I thought not" jab at my knowledge of the I90 corridor is even more flippant and reflects badly on your security about your main point.
But you *are* a suburbanite right? Issaquah is certainly a burb and North Bend and Snoqualmie are bedroom communities for Seattle. When I am talking about the difficulties of deploying broadband I'm not talking about those type of communities. I mean broadband in small towns in the Oakanogan or Wenatchee - nowhere near the city.
Okay, lets get one thing straight. My initial post said the US telecomm industry needed competition, in order to lower prices. You've jumped to the conclusion that this would lead to predatory pricing. How can you make this leap of logic? It doesn't HAVE to lead to predatory pricing.
I can make that "leap of logic" simply by understanding how semi-competitive markets- and especially the US telecom market works. No - in a competitive market competing on price does not necessarily lead to price wars. But in a semi-competetive market like telecom (where efficiency is high and opportunities for cost-cutting are minimal) competitive pricing leads to price wars.
This is ridiculous. If companies don't differentiate themselves from other companies they don't compete. Competing on pricing is one way, and its a proven way that's not detrimental. If I run a company that cuts costs by about 10%, I can pass that savings to a customer, thus competing on price.
Umm, I already addressed this at least once but I guess it bears repeating. US telecom companies are already operating at near maximum efficiency. The last great leap in efficiency was the transfer from switced copper netwroks to fibre and VOIP. Currently there is very little room left to reduce cost. Let me repeat - cost cannot be reduced And yet companies continue to compete on price- guess where that leads? That's right - price wars.
Take for example Vonage. I can buy a phone plan from them for $30. A similar plan from verizon on traditional lines is $80 all inclusive (taxes etc). Vonage's costs are lower because they use voice over IP and the service and quality is the same (at least in my opinion it is). THAT'S competiting on price and its non-predatory.
That's competing by skirting regulation and avoiding expensive regulatory requirements. The reason they can afford to offer service this cheap is because they do not consider themselves a telecom company - and they therefore do not meet expensive regulatory requirements. This savings is passed on to the consumer via lower prices. The truth is that Vonage will lose a retarded amount of money once the FCC starts treating them like an actual phone service. They will have to provide 911, battery backup and access for disabled consumers. The costs will force vonage to bring their prices in line . If vonage ever gets enough customers to be significant, and somehow ducks regulatory requirements, then we may see the big telcos price them out of existence - but I expect they won't survive that long.
While this might be true, its only an assumption with no facts. The fact is South Korea did it, so its possible.
The US is not like South Korea and for numerous reasons they are not directly comparable.
Your assuming that only a large company could attempt this, while it may be possible for a lot of much smaller companies to compete over areas and offer service in many different areas, thus freeing up the need to have one big huge conglomerate running half the country.
The only way this could happen is if the government breaks up the large telecom companies. As long as teh big companies are around it will be difficult to have real competition.
As far as rural development - forget it. No small company can afford to put infrastructure in remote areas..
And AGAIN, price based competition is not necessarily predatory pricing.
Look I know that competing on price is not always bad. But generally - in the telecom industry - it is bad for everyone. I hope this is the last time I need to go over this..
If I can do the same thing someone else can for less cost, I will lower my price to compete.
That isn't what's happening in this market. Companies are saying, "Well we're screwed if we charge the same price as the near-monopolies. Let's charge less than cost for a while to get market share." Then the big companies respond a
We aren't talking about your choice of lifestyle - we're talking about the difficulty of deploying broadband in rural areas - and yeah, it is a problem.
Oh and also - the Seattle suburbs along the I-90 don't qualify as rural. Have you ever tried to get service in truely rural Wshington?
I thought not..
You are assuming that the pricing in South Korea is predatory.
No, actually I was referring to the US telecom market - since that's what we were discussing.
Someone needs to re-take logic 101.
And that someone is you;)...
All I said was that competition is good, even on price.
Actually you said, "Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market." This is not really true. Pricing is one method of making a market non-competitive.
Plus predatory pricing often happens when dealing with very very large companies that have a lot of capital.
You mean like telecom companies?
The more competition you have, the less likely this works because you can't steal enough market share from all your competitors and remain in business when you sell below cost.
But the US has very few competitors and price wars actually work quite well for the near-monopolies.
However, they have apparently established a framework in South Korea that doesn't tie the framework so tightly to the company, and competition can be healthy, and thus entry into the market can be done at a lower cost. This is what I am getting from the article, and this is what most people are calling for in the US. Untie the wires from the telecomm industry and competition will open dramatically. We've been trying to do that for years without a huge amount of success.
But then we still have the problem of the huge cost of building the facilities. Obviously if the facilities were in place it would be easy to have service-based competition at reasonable prices - and everyone would be happy. But the problem is that some has to build those facilities. And whoever that is will want to be guaranteed huge returns to offset the enormous risk and expenditure that such a construction project would entail...
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price
Walmart is nothing liek telecom companies. This is a bad analogy.
Again, I use the term competitive prices, and you turn it into talking about a price war.
That's because in the telecom industry "competitive pricing" inevitably and quickly devolves into price wars.
The bottom line is that when there is a lot of competition, prices go down. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply broadband should drop to $5 or $10 a month in 4 months. I'm just saying open up competition. We'll get better prices AND better service.
I agree. But broadband has to exist as a market before it can become competitive. So, someone is going to have to sink in a ton of money in order to deploy broadband on a wide scale. This company is going to have to be willing to allow competitors to use their networks in order to compete. How likely is that to happen?
Sasktel is a Crown Corporation. It was at all regulated by CRTC until 2000. Because there is still all kinds of government funding being pumped in to fund unproftiable programs (like high speed internet, access for the disabled), Sasktel is not directly comparable to the US or even the rest of Canada.
I tend to agree with you - but I'm not sure how successful this would be in practice. What happens if you invest in the broadband lines and the promised resultant economic boom never comes?
The Keynesian economic model suggests that putting people to work building projects that will stimulate economic growth is a good idea. However there have been many cases where the promised benefit never came while the corrupt contractors who are hired to do the work bleed society dry.
(I'm thinking Boston's Big Dig, the construction of large domed stadiums, those "urban renewal" design communities that have faded into new ghettos...)
You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool.
Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition is good for the market.
Someone needs to re-take economics 101. Predatory pricing and the resultant price wars are generally bad for the market...
The the ridiculousness of this statement is assuming that costs never go down and that companies will sell service or goods below cost and never expect to get it back. That's stupid. No company is going to sell goods below cost unless they had expected profit to come later. Otherwise the company is mismanaged. It's in a business's self interest not to do that so its not something that happens all that often unless the company is run by flying monkeys.
Companies will try to kill each off through price wars in order to recover a greater share of the market - this is long term good for them but bad for the market and the consumer. Obviously they will not sell services below costs without hope that they can recover the costs later..
Yes when one company goes out of business it hurts the industry because there is less competition, but in a highly competitive market with lots of companies this isn't usually a big problem. It's only a problem when you have 3 or 4 very big companies in an industry with high costs of entry.
Telecom companies are not like lemonade stands where the cost of market entry is low. It costs a shitload of money to enter the market as a competitor - consequently there are very few companies with the wherewithal to do so. Sadly these generally companies engage (illogically and all to frequently) in price-based competition in order to win market-share. The result is a price war which they ultimately lose with the result being their insolvency.
After potential competitors see their predecessors go down in flames they aren't likely to take a shot themselves. Then we are stuck with the same monopolies that we have now..
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price
The obvious answer here is that telecom companies aren't like Walmart. The cost of market entry is high, operating costs are high - companies already operate at high levels of efficiency and it is not possible to lower short-term enough to make a price war viable...
In these areas there are other reasons for the lack of development:
1)The broadband companies already make a killing off of the service they provide so there is no incentive to upgrade
The FCC attempted to solve this by encouraging competition which, in some areas has led to:
2)Price wars that suck the profit out of the market. Companies that might want to upgrade their networks are afraid that they willn ot be able to recover the costs of doing so..
OR
3)Price fixing. The "competitors" collude with the near-monopolies such that the prices remain high and evryone makes money - an oligopoly. The problem here is one of incentive the same as situation 1..
The FCC has to attempt to solve these problems with regulation - but that is not an easy task. It isn't so much "regulatory problems" but simply industry problems that constantly demand new regulation..
Why does something need to generate revenue in order to justify its creation?
Because telecommunications is an industry with the goal of making money.
This is the fundamental problem with a completely capitalistic view of the world - try injecting a little socialism and you may find that providing something people want and need *just for the sake of it* brings its own rewards (e.g. healthcare)
I'm with you - and as soon as the feds nationalize the communications industry we'll talk. Until then we have to consider costs, revenue and profits when we condier telecommunications develpoment.
If the potential revenue justified the costs of installing 3mbit in rural communities then those commnuities would already have 3mbit - the telcos do like to make money...
It was an equally daunting task to provide universal phone system coverage to those people in Montana and the mountains of Washington State in the mid-20th century.
That's true. But once construction was complete the telcos essentially had a license to print money. They could easily sustain the expenditure of installing in remote areas becasue they could make so much damn money off teh system as a whole. Not to mention universal service charges.
Right now the fear is that they will build the network and then be forced to co-locate, provide facilities for competitors. This will eat away at their profits - and make it less likely that they will spend the money...
Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.
Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well. While additional broadband competitors may drive the prices of broadband down to the point of being unprofitable, it is highly unlikely that they will stimulate expansion of high speed infrastructure.
The is especially true for government mandated competitors who share facilities with the near-monopolies in order to provide a facade of competiton.
The only competitors who could actually help develop the industry would have to be willing to spend billions of their own dollars before earning a cent. Then they could look forward to fighting a devastating price war with the near-monopolies.
Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.
Actually most competitors have much less cash than the near-monopoly companies. They would be even less likely to spend the kind of money necessary to provide high speed in rural areas.
I think the key point is that, ".. South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people."
It really is a huge problem to provide high-speed access to people living in rural Montanna or in the mountains of Washington state.
The problem isn't that the bureaucracy is slowing down the development. Rather, the problem is that the revenue that would be earned by installing 8mbit capacity nationwide cannot justify the cost.
To follow-up - you miss the point - rights do not exist. Period. Ever. Never have.
I have to disagree. Rights do exist - always have, always will.
The UN, anyone, anywhere, anytime, whatever can say whatever they like, but at the end of the day humanity existed for thousands of years before any sort of formal organisztions like these came into existence and then, just as now, rights were ultimately determined by the authority in society at the business end of a weapon.
Umm, didn't I already adress this? The UN doesn't create rights - nor does any other political body. Human rights exist a priori, that is, as a condition of existence, and are unalterable. You and I both know what these rights are just as surely as we know how to use our intellect - they are a condition of being human. That's why, for example, the Declaration of Independence says, "These truths we hold to be self evident...".
Anyone can take away every right you have simply by shooting you.
So, again, to re-iterate they do NOT exist. Period.
The second statement doesn't follow from the first. Notice that I have agreed that the abuse of human rights runs rampant among oppressive states. This does not mean that human rights do not exist. It simply means that they can be abused.
To speak of inherency is a red herring - such ideals were only created by us (mostly here in the wealthy, white, west) and as such are, like rights, an abstract so the idea of them being inherent is no more real then the abstract concept of "rights".
No. Rights are not an abstract ideal. It's just that it requires abstract language and constructs in order to describe a very simple condition of being.
It isn't just the wealthy, white west that knows about human rights. To put it simply: all cultures have concepts of right and wrong. All cultures know how suffering at the hands of the state is unjust. All people know that it is better to be free than unfree. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to follow this...
If they do not exist, then they cannot be inherent.
Can't argue with you there. But they do exist so they can be - and in fact are - inherent.
Slashdot is read by people from all walks of life, not all of who have a good undertsanding of the PATRIOT act and its implications. Additionally, Slashdot is indexed by Google (and numerous other search engines). Anyone looking for information on the Patriot act may encounter a discussion on Slashdot, read it, and learn something.
Actually they are. This was described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - but it has always been true.
Your rights are given to you by the society you live in and can be taken away from you by that society at will
Wrong again. Your rights are inherent. When your state/society abuses their power and ignores your rights - this is what we call human rights abuse.
Pieces of paper such as the US Constitution provide protection only as long as those with sufficient power are prepared to tolerate it.
I agree, paper doesn't provide protection - people do. If people choose to not protect basic human rights, well that is one thing - but it doesn't mean those rights do not exist.
Rights are not something you posess.
That's true.
The US Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration are simply an attempt to codify, to describe, natural human rights. Because these rights exist a priori they cannot be given to a person anymore than they can be taken away - they are simply a condition of being human.
Some political policies - realpolitik or neoconservatism - choose to ignore the fundamental truth about each of our rights as humans. In doing so they commit terrible atrocities and attempt to justify themselves with a simple "might is right" explanation.
This is, of course, a load of crap. The strong will be "successful" but they cannot reconfigure the moral compass. Therefore while the powerful can trample all over people's rights they cannot actually take those rights away.
Not the same. "Check Cards" facilitate transactions through Visa or MC. These transactions often take several days to process (transfer the funds) and the credit card company will charge for the service. True debit cards offer immediate funds transfers from the cardholders account to the seller's account.
It's silly that a debit system exists that doesn't require final authorization and PIN entry by the card holder. If this was my only debit payment option I would stick with the credit card too.
But in many areas the debit card is convenient, safe and quickly replacing cash for use in most transactions..
Slashdot Mirror
Id always delivers on their promise to do something new - every few years they have released a brand-new FPS game engine. However many people are looking for something completely different in terms of game design, not just engine design. In order to accomplish this id needs to employ more creative game designers with radically different ideas.
id hasn't really had a creative/visionary designer since the split with Romero.
If you'd like to disagree with that I think it could be an interesting discussion. But simply stating that it's not a lifestyle choice doesn't make it so.
In all honesty I do disagree. I also disagree about how interesting that argument would be..
Your "I thought not" jab at my knowledge of the I90 corridor is even more flippant and reflects badly on your security about your main point.
But you *are* a suburbanite right? Issaquah is certainly a burb and North Bend and Snoqualmie are bedroom communities for Seattle. When I am talking about the difficulties of deploying broadband I'm not talking about those type of communities. I mean broadband in small towns in the Oakanogan or Wenatchee - nowhere near the city.
Okay, lets get one thing straight. My initial post said the US telecomm industry needed competition, in order to lower prices. You've jumped to the conclusion that this would lead to predatory pricing. How can you make this leap of logic? It doesn't HAVE to lead to predatory pricing.
I can make that "leap of logic" simply by understanding how semi-competitive markets- and especially the US telecom market works. No - in a competitive market competing on price does not necessarily lead to price wars. But in a semi-competetive market like telecom (where efficiency is high and opportunities for cost-cutting are minimal) competitive pricing leads to price wars.
This is ridiculous. If companies don't differentiate themselves from other companies they don't compete. Competing on pricing is one way, and its a proven way that's not detrimental. If I run a company that cuts costs by about 10%, I can pass that savings to a customer, thus competing on price.
Umm, I already addressed this at least once but I guess it bears repeating. US telecom companies are already operating at near maximum efficiency. The last great leap in efficiency was the transfer from switced copper netwroks to fibre and VOIP. Currently there is very little room left to reduce cost. Let me repeat - cost cannot be reduced And yet companies continue to compete on price- guess where that leads? That's right - price wars.
Take for example Vonage. I can buy a phone plan from them for $30. A similar plan from verizon on traditional lines is $80 all inclusive (taxes etc). Vonage's costs are lower because they use voice over IP and the service and quality is the same (at least in my opinion it is). THAT'S competiting on price and its non-predatory.
That's competing by skirting regulation and avoiding expensive regulatory requirements. The reason they can afford to offer service this cheap is because they do not consider themselves a telecom company - and they therefore do not meet expensive regulatory requirements. This savings is passed on to the consumer via lower prices. The truth is that Vonage will lose a retarded amount of money once the FCC starts treating them like an actual phone service. They will have to provide 911, battery backup and access for disabled consumers. The costs will force vonage to bring their prices in line . If vonage ever gets enough customers to be significant, and somehow ducks regulatory requirements, then we may see the big telcos price them out of existence - but I expect they won't survive that long.
While this might be true, its only an assumption with no facts. The fact is South Korea did it, so its possible.
The US is not like South Korea and for numerous reasons they are not directly comparable.
Your assuming that only a large company could attempt this, while it may be possible for a lot of much smaller companies to compete over areas and offer service in many different areas, thus freeing up the need to have one big huge conglomerate running half the country.
The only way this could happen is if the government breaks up the large telecom companies. As long as teh big companies are around it will be difficult to have real competition.
As far as rural development - forget it. No small company can afford to put infrastructure in remote areas..
And AGAIN, price based competition is not necessarily predatory pricing.
Look I know that competing on price is not always bad. But generally - in the telecom industry - it is bad for everyone. I hope this is the last time I need to go over this..
If I can do the same thing someone else can for less cost, I will lower my price to compete.
That isn't what's happening in this market. Companies are saying, "Well we're screwed if we charge the same price as the near-monopolies. Let's charge less than cost for a while to get market share." Then the big companies respond a
We aren't talking about your choice of lifestyle - we're talking about the difficulty of deploying broadband in rural areas - and yeah, it is a problem.
Oh and also - the Seattle suburbs along the I-90 don't qualify as rural. Have you ever tried to get service in truely rural Wshington? I thought not..
You are assuming that the pricing in South Korea is predatory.
;)...
No, actually I was referring to the US telecom market - since that's what we were discussing.
Someone needs to re-take logic 101.
And that someone is you
All I said was that competition is good, even on price.
Actually you said, "Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market." This is not really true. Pricing is one method of making a market non-competitive.
Plus predatory pricing often happens when dealing with very very large companies that have a lot of capital.
You mean like telecom companies?
The more competition you have, the less likely this works because you can't steal enough market share from all your competitors and remain in business when you sell below cost.
But the US has very few competitors and price wars actually work quite well for the near-monopolies.
However, they have apparently established a framework in South Korea that doesn't tie the framework so tightly to the company, and competition can be healthy, and thus entry into the market can be done at a lower cost. This is what I am getting from the article, and this is what most people are calling for in the US. Untie the wires from the telecomm industry and competition will open dramatically. We've been trying to do that for years without a huge amount of success.
But then we still have the problem of the huge cost of building the facilities. Obviously if the facilities were in place it would be easy to have service-based competition at reasonable prices - and everyone would be happy. But the problem is that some has to build those facilities. And whoever that is will want to be guaranteed huge returns to offset the enormous risk and expenditure that such a construction project would entail...
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price
Walmart is nothing liek telecom companies. This is a bad analogy.
Again, I use the term competitive prices, and you turn it into talking about a price war.
That's because in the telecom industry "competitive pricing" inevitably and quickly devolves into price wars.
The bottom line is that when there is a lot of competition, prices go down. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply broadband should drop to $5 or $10 a month in 4 months. I'm just saying open up competition. We'll get better prices AND better service.
I agree. But broadband has to exist as a market before it can become competitive. So, someone is going to have to sink in a ton of money in order to deploy broadband on a wide scale. This company is going to have to be willing to allow competitors to use their networks in order to compete. How likely is that to happen?
Exactly...
Sasktel is a Crown Corporation. It was at all regulated by CRTC until 2000. Because there is still all kinds of government funding being pumped in to fund unproftiable programs (like high speed internet, access for the disabled), Sasktel is not directly comparable to the US or even the rest of Canada.
+1 Insightful
I tend to agree with you - but I'm not sure how successful this would be in practice. What happens if you invest in the broadband lines and the promised resultant economic boom never comes?
The Keynesian economic model suggests that putting people to work building projects that will stimulate economic growth is a good idea. However there have been many cases where the promised benefit never came while the corrupt contractors who are hired to do the work bleed society dry.
(I'm thinking Boston's Big Dig, the construction of large domed stadiums, those "urban renewal" design communities that have faded into new ghettos...)
You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool. Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition is good for the market.
Someone needs to re-take economics 101. Predatory pricing and the resultant price wars are generally bad for the market...
The the ridiculousness of this statement is assuming that costs never go down and that companies will sell service or goods below cost and never expect to get it back. That's stupid. No company is going to sell goods below cost unless they had expected profit to come later. Otherwise the company is mismanaged. It's in a business's self interest not to do that so its not something that happens all that often unless the company is run by flying monkeys.
Companies will try to kill each off through price wars in order to recover a greater share of the market - this is long term good for them but bad for the market and the consumer. Obviously they will not sell services below costs without hope that they can recover the costs later..
Yes when one company goes out of business it hurts the industry because there is less competition, but in a highly competitive market with lots of companies this isn't usually a big problem. It's only a problem when you have 3 or 4 very big companies in an industry with high costs of entry.
Telecom companies are not like lemonade stands where the cost of market entry is low. It costs a shitload of money to enter the market as a competitor - consequently there are very few companies with the wherewithal to do so. Sadly these generally companies engage (illogically and all to frequently) in price-based competition in order to win market-share. The result is a price war which they ultimately lose with the result being their insolvency.
After potential competitors see their predecessors go down in flames they aren't likely to take a shot themselves. Then we are stuck with the same monopolies that we have now..
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price
The obvious answer here is that telecom companies aren't like Walmart. The cost of market entry is high, operating costs are high - companies already operate at high levels of efficiency and it is not possible to lower short-term enough to make a price war viable...
In these areas there are other reasons for the lack of development:
1)The broadband companies already make a killing off of the service they provide so there is no incentive to upgrade
The FCC attempted to solve this by encouraging competition which, in some areas has led to:
2)Price wars that suck the profit out of the market. Companies that might want to upgrade their networks are afraid that they willn ot be able to recover the costs of doing so..
OR
3)Price fixing. The "competitors" collude with the near-monopolies such that the prices remain high and evryone makes money - an oligopoly. The problem here is one of incentive the same as situation 1..
The FCC has to attempt to solve these problems with regulation - but that is not an easy task. It isn't so much "regulatory problems" but simply industry problems that constantly demand new regulation..
Why does something need to generate revenue in order to justify its creation?
Because telecommunications is an industry with the goal of making money.
This is the fundamental problem with a completely capitalistic view of the world - try injecting a little socialism and you may find that providing something people want and need *just for the sake of it* brings its own rewards (e.g. healthcare)
I'm with you - and as soon as the feds nationalize the communications industry we'll talk. Until then we have to consider costs, revenue and profits when we condier telecommunications develpoment.
That's a great strategy, and I'm on board with you. But I just don't see that kind of government spending happening anytime soon.
And as for private development - well, as soon as there is profit to be had...
But Canada has very dense population centers. Most of its citizens live in cities along the border with the US.
So density really is the key..
If the potential revenue justified the costs of installing 3mbit in rural communities then those commnuities would already have 3mbit - the telcos do like to make money...
It was an equally daunting task to provide universal phone system coverage to those people in Montana and the mountains of Washington State in the mid-20th century.
That's true. But once construction was complete the telcos essentially had a license to print money. They could easily sustain the expenditure of installing in remote areas becasue they could make so much damn money off teh system as a whole. Not to mention universal service charges.
Right now the fear is that they will build the network and then be forced to co-locate, provide facilities for competitors. This will eat away at their profits - and make it less likely that they will spend the money...
Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.
Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well. While additional broadband competitors may drive the prices of broadband down to the point of being unprofitable, it is highly unlikely that they will stimulate expansion of high speed infrastructure.
The is especially true for government mandated competitors who share facilities with the near-monopolies in order to provide a facade of competiton.
The only competitors who could actually help develop the industry would have to be willing to spend billions of their own dollars before earning a cent. Then they could look forward to fighting a devastating price war with the near-monopolies.
Any takers?
I thought not...
Only because of the legalized monopolies that we allow in this country. Sadly single companies control entire areas and they don't have any reason to put broadband in if there's no competition.
Actually most competitors have much less cash than the near-monopoly companies. They would be even less likely to spend the kind of money necessary to provide high speed in rural areas.
I think the key point is that, ".. South Korea's densely populated areas have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely fast service to large numbers of people."
It really is a huge problem to provide high-speed access to people living in rural Montanna or in the mountains of Washington state.
The problem isn't that the bureaucracy is slowing down the development. Rather, the problem is that the revenue that would be earned by installing 8mbit capacity nationwide cannot justify the cost.
To follow-up - you miss the point - rights do not exist. Period. Ever. Never have.
I have to disagree. Rights do exist - always have, always will.
The UN, anyone, anywhere, anytime, whatever can say whatever they like, but at the end of the day humanity existed for thousands of years before any sort of formal organisztions like these came into existence and then, just as now, rights were ultimately determined by the authority in society at the business end of a weapon.
Umm, didn't I already adress this? The UN doesn't create rights - nor does any other political body. Human rights exist a priori, that is, as a condition of existence, and are unalterable. You and I both know what these rights are just as surely as we know how to use our intellect - they are a condition of being human. That's why, for example, the Declaration of Independence says, "These truths we hold to be self evident...".
Anyone can take away every right you have simply by shooting you.
So, again, to re-iterate they do NOT exist. Period.
The second statement doesn't follow from the first. Notice that I have agreed that the abuse of human rights runs rampant among oppressive states. This does not mean that human rights do not exist. It simply means that they can be abused.
To speak of inherency is a red herring - such ideals were only created by us (mostly here in the wealthy, white, west) and as such are, like rights, an abstract so the idea of them being inherent is no more real then the abstract concept of "rights".
No. Rights are not an abstract ideal. It's just that it requires abstract language and constructs in order to describe a very simple condition of being.
It isn't just the wealthy, white west that knows about human rights. To put it simply: all cultures have concepts of right and wrong. All cultures know how suffering at the hands of the state is unjust. All people know that it is better to be free than unfree. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to follow this...
If they do not exist, then they cannot be inherent.
Can't argue with you there. But they do exist so they can be - and in fact are - inherent.
umm..whoops?
Slashdot is read by people from all walks of life, not all of who have a good undertsanding of the PATRIOT act and its implications. Additionally, Slashdot is indexed by Google (and numerous other search engines). Anyone looking for information on the Patriot act may encounter a discussion on Slashdot, read it, and learn something.
Actually they aren't.
Actually they are. This was described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - but it has always been true.
Your rights are given to you by the society you live in and can be taken away from you by that society at will
Wrong again. Your rights are inherent. When your state/society abuses their power and ignores your rights - this is what we call human rights abuse.
Pieces of paper such as the US Constitution provide protection only as long as those with sufficient power are prepared to tolerate it.
I agree, paper doesn't provide protection - people do. If people choose to not protect basic human rights, well that is one thing - but it doesn't mean those rights do not exist.
Rights are not something you posess.
That's true. The US Constitution, the UN Universal Declaration are simply an attempt to codify, to describe, natural human rights. Because these rights exist a priori they cannot be given to a person anymore than they can be taken away - they are simply a condition of being human.
Some political policies - realpolitik or neoconservatism - choose to ignore the fundamental truth about each of our rights as humans. In doing so they commit terrible atrocities and attempt to justify themselves with a simple "might is right" explanation.
This is, of course, a load of crap. The strong will be "successful" but they cannot reconfigure the moral compass. Therefore while the powerful can trample all over people's rights they cannot actually take those rights away.
1) Human rights are universal - they exist everywhere including oppressive states that ignore them.
2) The grandparent said they don't like human rights in China.
3) I thought that was odd.
That is all....
So you're not a big fan of human rights in China?
Not the same. "Check Cards" facilitate transactions through Visa or MC. These transactions often take several days to process (transfer the funds) and the credit card company will charge for the service. True debit cards offer immediate funds transfers from the cardholders account to the seller's account.
It's silly that a debit system exists that doesn't require final authorization and PIN entry by the card holder. If this was my only debit payment option I would stick with the credit card too.
But in many areas the debit card is convenient, safe and quickly replacing cash for use in most transactions..