I agree with you on the natural monopoly thing to some extent, but even so, the regulation shouldn't be by the federal government, it should be by the state government. The FCC only has jurisdiction because of what the lines carry, not the lines themselves.
I believe some states do regulate the phone companies on top of what the FCC does.
This seems like one of those grand opportunities, like the building of the U.S. highway system, where the government could step in and provide universal internet access.
If it's such a great idea, and a large portion of the population is in support of it, why not start a non-profit organization to do it?
I'd much rather have a non-profit running a universal internet access system than the government. Sure, you'd have to pay for it directly, but that's a lot better than having to pay for it indirectly through taxes. You'd get to see what the cost is, and compare it to the for-profit solution. This will force the non-profit not to waste time and resources.
The current problem is that the vastness of America means that private companies don't find it cost effective to hook up Ma and Pa Kent out in the sticks.
How is that a problem? Why should I subsidize Ma and Pa Kent? Should the government really be encouraging suburban sprawl?
However, if you consider that the reason you have your broadband is because it just happens that you are lucky enough to live in a densely populated area.
I'm not "lucky enough" to live in a densely populated area. I chose to live here, in part because of the better services available. If Ma and Pa would rather live in a densely populated area and have high speed internet, they should move to the city.
There are certain things that the government ought to provide, or ought to subsidize in large amounts, and one subset of those is basic utilities. The Internet is one of the utilities that will be key in the future of our country.
Pretty much anyone in the country who owns their property can get satellite internet at a reasonable price, and that's good enough access for most people. If you need more, don't live in the sticks.
I think the cable companies should be held to the same standards as the phone companies, not the other way around.
So, you think the cable companies should be held to the same standards as the phone companies, but you don't think the phone companies should be held to the same standards as the cable companies?
a lot of the big-name ISPs (Verizon, SBC, etc.) will just refuse to help you at all if they find out you're running Linux
I've found that while this used to be true, nowadays there are so many people out there with Linksys (or other) routers that it really doesn't matter any more.
Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad.
You're missing an important point here. Massport owns the airport that Continental Airlines is broadcasting its signal from.
This would be like if you went into an Internet Cafe which offers pay wifi and started broadcasting a free signal. Part 15 of the FCC regulations don't prevent the Cafe from kicking you out.
Actually grandparent probably meant one about "information wants to be free like wanter wants to flow downhill".
I doubt it, since the poster said "what sentence followed it" not "what phrase followed it". The sentence which followed it was "Information also wants to be expensive."
A statement of fact, more than some anthropomorphization of information.
It's still an anthropomorphization, just like "water wants to run downhill" would be. Not even much of a statement of fact, since it's dependent on your description of what "wants to" means. In fact, if you're going to look it as a physical law, the opposite is probably closer to true. Information wants to be disordered.
And while you are reading the mentioned discussion, you might even find out what the sentence you seem to despice so much originally meant and most importantly, what sentence followed it.
Since information wants to be free, I'll kill the suspense and give the full quote you were probably referring to:
Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine---too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better.
Here's another:
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.
In case the site gets slashdotted, here's a copy of the recent activity:
00:08:54:51 : PC2XXB]APRS,RS0ISS-3*,qAO,KB8ZGL-5:!3900.00N/07630 .00W0Testing
00:08:56:20 : PC2XXB]APRS,RS0ISS-3*,qAO,KB8ZGL-5:]testing
02:03:26:43 : PCSAT2]APRLTM,SGATE,qAO,KC9XG:{T# IGNORE ALogger A side test packet
02:03:26:43 : KC9XG]APRS,PCSAT2*,qAC,KC9XG:] IGNORE ALogger A side test digi packet
02:03:26:44 : PCSAT2]APRLTM,SGATE,qAO,KC9XG:T# IGNORE ALogger A side test packet
It hasn't been clarified, because the handbook isn't being changed at all.
Well, a judge and the board has ruled that your interpretation is unreasonable. So I'd say that's more clarification than necessary.
The issue here isn't whether someone would be fired for trying to organize a union -- though that happens very frequently -- but whether this rule would have a chilling effect on any organizing (formal or otherwise) among employees.
But it's only going to have a chilling effect if there is fear that the people are going to be reprimanded for organizing. Do you really think that's still possible considering that a judge has ruled that such an interpretation is not reasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
I understood that part. Massport is just using the wrong argument.
And you're basing this on an obviously biased miniature summary of the argument that you read on some website?
Verizon has the naked option, but it costs more than buying the regular option and basic phone service combined.
I agree with you on the natural monopoly thing to some extent, but even so, the regulation shouldn't be by the federal government, it should be by the state government. The FCC only has jurisdiction because of what the lines carry, not the lines themselves.
I believe some states do regulate the phone companies on top of what the FCC does.
Yeah, cause without Ma and Pa Farmer, megacorps like Perdue and Tyson would never be able to produce enough food to feed the city folk.
This seems like one of those grand opportunities, like the building of the U.S. highway system, where the government could step in and provide universal internet access.
If it's such a great idea, and a large portion of the population is in support of it, why not start a non-profit organization to do it?
I'd much rather have a non-profit running a universal internet access system than the government. Sure, you'd have to pay for it directly, but that's a lot better than having to pay for it indirectly through taxes. You'd get to see what the cost is, and compare it to the for-profit solution. This will force the non-profit not to waste time and resources.
The current problem is that the vastness of America means that private companies don't find it cost effective to hook up Ma and Pa Kent out in the sticks.
How is that a problem? Why should I subsidize Ma and Pa Kent? Should the government really be encouraging suburban sprawl?
However, if you consider that the reason you have your broadband is because it just happens that you are lucky enough to live in a densely populated area.
I'm not "lucky enough" to live in a densely populated area. I chose to live here, in part because of the better services available. If Ma and Pa would rather live in a densely populated area and have high speed internet, they should move to the city.
There are certain things that the government ought to provide, or ought to subsidize in large amounts, and one subset of those is basic utilities. The Internet is one of the utilities that will be key in the future of our country.
Pretty much anyone in the country who owns their property can get satellite internet at a reasonable price, and that's good enough access for most people. If you need more, don't live in the sticks.
I think the cable companies should be held to the same standards as the phone companies, not the other way around.
So, you think the cable companies should be held to the same standards as the phone companies, but you don't think the phone companies should be held to the same standards as the cable companies?
a lot of the big-name ISPs (Verizon, SBC, etc.) will just refuse to help you at all if they find out you're running Linux
I've found that while this used to be true, nowadays there are so many people out there with Linksys (or other) routers that it really doesn't matter any more.
As far as I understand it, in Wifi interference is not a concern of the FCC, so long as you are below power limits.
So why can't I use wifi on an airplane?
Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad.
You're missing an important point here. Massport owns the airport that Continental Airlines is broadcasting its signal from.
This would be like if you went into an Internet Cafe which offers pay wifi and started broadcasting a free signal. Part 15 of the FCC regulations don't prevent the Cafe from kicking you out.
Being a jerk is being a jerk. When the dust settles, the decision in this case is precident setting for future cases where people are jerks.
Who's the one being a jerk in this situation, though? Seems like they both are.
In case that wasn't a rhetorical question, yes, I have.
Actually grandparent probably meant one about "information wants to be free like wanter wants to flow downhill".
I doubt it, since the poster said "what sentence followed it" not "what phrase followed it". The sentence which followed it was "Information also wants to be expensive."
A statement of fact, more than some anthropomorphization of information.
It's still an anthropomorphization, just like "water wants to run downhill" would be. Not even much of a statement of fact, since it's dependent on your description of what "wants to" means. In fact, if you're going to look it as a physical law, the opposite is probably closer to true. Information wants to be disordered.
And while you are reading the mentioned discussion, you might even find out what the sentence you seem to despice so much originally meant and most importantly, what sentence followed it.
Since information wants to be free, I'll kill the suspense and give the full quote you were probably referring to:
Here's another:Interestingly, in both quotes, they were talking about price, not freedom. See http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF .html
Most people who don't agree with that cliché don't understand it - and they are usually the ones who bring it up in the first place.
I guess it's just satellite imagery, but it has never compared to something that I've seen with my own eyes until then.
Besides that I saw it as a sort of miniature challenge to myself. Take this digital photo and recreate it as best I can using google earth.
Well whoever "they" are, they'll have to beat $80 a month, which is what EVDO costs.
I know, I'm using it right now :).
but would a good programmer create a better version of hello world than a bad programmer?
Who cares? We weren't talking about a hello world program.
In conclusion, surely it doesn't apply to hello world.
And surely no one is going to pay someone to write hello world.
By the time they have it in your area they'll probably also have EVDO or better, though, and at a cheaper price.
I'm surprised that the technology is out there to produce such an image.
At $600/month, wouldn't it be cheaper to just move?
If an employee is going to study legal statues, then they'll know what their rights are, regardless of the handbook.
I'm not talking about statues, if the Union is so concerned about this why don't they just tell the employees themselves?
To repeat: when the case is about the clarity of the handbook, the ruling itself is not a clarification. That wouldn't make sense.
I guess you're right. Though what really doesn't make sense to me is why the government would get involved in such a thing in the first place.
It hasn't been clarified, because the handbook isn't being changed at all.
Well, a judge and the board has ruled that your interpretation is unreasonable. So I'd say that's more clarification than necessary.
The issue here isn't whether someone would be fired for trying to organize a union -- though that happens very frequently -- but whether this rule would have a chilling effect on any organizing (formal or otherwise) among employees.
But it's only going to have a chilling effect if there is fear that the people are going to be reprimanded for organizing. Do you really think that's still possible considering that a judge has ruled that such an interpretation is not reasonable?
You're not an exempt salaried employee?
You must not work in IT, because just about any IT worker could easily take a few years off of work and still survive. Hell, I've done it.