I've noticed all the "not me" haven't given a single location where there is competition for the copper lines or competition for the coax.
We've already told you why. Your demand is irrelevant to the actual topic, which is not "copper line provider", but ISP. The fact you cannot imagine any other ISP than what comes over a copper pair via DSL is your problem and does not a monopoly ISP make. Given that you also seem to recognize "coax provider" as another way to connect to a different ISP but can't fathom that it proves ISP is not a monopoly makes the discussion pointless.
I should be able to get that speed most of the time from a Google server that is across the country.
Your ISP cannot guarantee, and should not be expected to do so, data speeds to any service that is not on the network controlled by that ISP. You "should be able to" is an admission that sometimes you won't, and that would break any promised fixed data rate.
Unfortunatelly, the advertised speed seems to be only to the IPS' own speed test servers which the ISP has tweeked to maximize internal ISP traffic.
Yes, which is logical. The ISP controls only their own network. Thus, speed tests can only show ISP data rates when run on the ISP network exclusively. You sound like you don't want the ISP to tweek internal data speeds on its own network.
So that somehow sets precedent making it okay for, say, Comcast to delay or throttle Netflix packets, or CBS streaming video packets, because they're a competitor?
Congestion at a border gateway obeys the law of net neutrality, for it is source agnostic.
Or to charge an extra fee to consumers so that trottling or delay doesn't happen?
Suppose I buy a 1Mbps down service from my ISP. Should I object to having to paying "an extra fee" (paying for 10Mbps) so that my streaming Netflix never buffers? The idea of paying more for a better Internet connection is not a violation of net neutrality, but that sure sounds like what you're saying.
If I wanted to watch pay-per-view from my ISP (also a video provider, so a competitor to netflix) I always got perfect quality.
Pay-per-view from Comcast was not delivered using the Internet. It was part of the television data stream. It does not traverse a border router to get to you. Apples and oranges.
This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low.
They didn't upgrade all their border routers when Netflix traffic was a major source of congestion. The bandwidth to Netflix did not change compared to bandwidth to anyone else.
The only 'implementation' of 'Net Neutrality' that is valid, is the one where no data packet gets prioritized or delayed any more than any other data packet. Pretending there's any other definition of 'net neutrality' is at best disingenuous.
That ridiculous definition of net neutrality is why there can never be regulation of net neutrality that makes any sense.
There are other valid definitions which are actually reasonable, such as "equivalent data services are not prioritized based on source". But when people see net neutrality with the zealous definition that you use, they are setting themselves up for disappointment. It's not a reasonable goal to begin with; getting the government involved in making it happen is a disaster waiting to happen.
And just to be clear, I don't feel that "this data doesn't count against your service limits" isn't prioritizing; "this data gets to you are full data rate, theirs is arbitrarily slowed down" is.
So far as this subject goes, hope you all enjoyed the Golden Age of the Internet, because it's now drawing to a close.
I think it would be better if they simply stated that:
1. If you advertise X speed, then the users gets X speed, every time, all the time.
Who do I sue if I connect to a website to download something and only get 100kbps instead of the 100Mbps I pay for? Can I sue the website's ISP because they are the bottleneck?
2. Get rid of this, "Up To" bullshit. no one is interested in some speed you might get once in a while.
Designing a network to provide 100% service levels is horribly expensive. Not even the POTS network was designed this way. You always design to a certain level of service and then expect some congestion. A 100% service level would mean that if you have just 10,000 100Mbps customers you would need to have 1Tbps in border bandwidth 100% of the time.
The current "up to" ratings are specifically BECAUSE of regulation. You will never get rid of such definitions until you get rid of truth in advertising laws. Considering that no ISP can fully control the bandwidth availability from their customers to the outside world, they cannot promise any specific bandwidth at 100%. Like I asked at the start, who do I get to sue when I only get 100kbps on my 100Mbps line?
3. No traffic is EVER restricted for ANY reason.
TCP/IP was designed with this ability for a reason.
4. If you can't support your sales pitch, then either build out to where you can or change your pitch.
And pay the price for that level of service. I don't like paying that much more for 100% guarantees of something that I only need occasionally. I personally don't care that my email isn't delivered in a fraction of a microsecond because my neighbor is using a real-time protocol that needs low latency, or that the web page I am looking at takes two seconds to load instead of one because someone is streaming an HD movie.
Sorry, but no. When there is more than one of them, it's not a monopoly.
Everywhere I've lived in the US, there has been only one company owning copper to an address, and only one company who could legally provide coax to an address.
So that's two ISPs to start with, and since "ISP" is not synonymous with "copper" or "coax", there are actually many more. I can name four just in this small city without even trying. That's without considering the major backbone providers like Level 3. In fact, right where I am sitting, I currently personally deal with five different ISPs, and through work I access three more. Eight competing ISPs. How is that a monopoly in any way, shape, or form?
Where do you live where you can get cable Internet at a single address from multiple companies?
Non-sequitor. "Cable television" is an economic monopoly (defacto, not dejure) and that medium can be used to provide internet service, but is hardly the only ISP. The local telco is a monopoly and can provide ISP services, but is not the only ISP.
Nowhere in the US I've ever seen. Zero competition (often enforced by law) is a monopoly.
I've never been anyplace in the US where there is zero competition between ISPs. There is NO PLACE in the US where an ISP has a legal monopoly. Not a single one. "Enforced by law" is hyperbole.
or a duopoly if you consider copper and coax to be the same thing.
The topic is "ISP", not "distribution medium". You cannot be in the US without ISP competition. You're stuck on thinking that "Comcast" or "Telco" are the only two ISPs in any town, and that's just not "informative" in any way. "Two" isn't how "monopoly" is defined to start with, and when you count them all, "two" doesn't even begin to cover it. There are so many possible ISPs that trying to call any one of them a "monopoly" is just ridiculous.
ISPs are utilities and should be regulated as such
The difference is that utilities are typically a monopoly and ISPs are not. Yes, we should certainly add more regulation to someone who wants to run an ISP so that it is even harder for competition to exist, not.
Wouldn't it be nice to pull into the garage, go inside, and the garage charges my car. Nothing to plug in...
There are much safer and cheaper ways to do this than to turn your entire garage into a high-power magnet. E.g., two plates in the floor that match two contacts on the bottom of your car to provide charging power. Or a coil in the floor that aligns with a coil on the car for a more focused transfer of energy.
Or drive a regular car. When I pull into my garage there is nothing to plug in. I have a patent on that no-plug system.
Yeah, but from the carrier, not Amazon (who can't control it).
Amazon knows very well it cannot make the delivery promise in many cases using the delivery method they choose, so yes, they do control it. You know they control it because they will often mark the shipment as "delivered" when you track it, even though it doesn't arrive until the next day.
They'll usually overnight products at no charge if you're annoyed enough to write them
I went through that process for a $25 item that they said would arrive Monday but didn't. I would have preferred some money back on the order, but I wound up having the hassle of returning one of the original when it finally did show up. "Keep it to make up for the inconvenience" would have been nice.
As to the original question: Amazon has two big outs they use when promising "second day" delivery. First, if the delivery is via USPS, they consider the item delivered when it arrives at the local post office, not at your house. And they often promise "second day by EIGHT PM", which means that any delivery to a commercial address where the receiving dept. goes home at 5PM is actually at least three day. And they know when an address is commercial.
Its the same reason I keep my wallet in my pocket until the cashier has rung up my total at a brick&mortar.
Then don't go to a gas station in the US.
Almost all of them in this area have gone to a "pre-pay" mode, where they think you must be a criminal who will drive away without paying unless they make you pay first.
Of course, when you want to fill up, you have to guess how much it will take. If you guess low, you don't get a fill. If you pay too much, you have to trust them to give you the excess back.
I stopped at one such station the other day (because the Shell in town that doesn't pull this crap was closed already) and walked inside, expecting that they would realize I wasn't going to drive off if I was inside the store. Nope. After about five minutes of waiting for gas, and telling the checkout girl I was waiting on pump 2, the attendant walks back in and tells me he isn't going to pump anything until I pay.
marketing that actually figures out the actual preferences of consumers and only targets them with relevant content.
You mean like when I search for something on Amazon and I get shown ads for the same stuff when I visit my local newspaper's website? That kind of irrelevant garbage intrusion on privacy?
A large part of your response seems like you think you're arguing with me,
Were I arguing with you, I'd tell you why you were wrong, not why you were right.
I don't see why not, as long as your definition of "people who aren't right" isn't about race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Here's where you are wrong. It is easy for any significant filter on subjective qualities to be interpreted as illegal.
That is, if your objection is something like, "This won't work once you have black employees!" then you should fuck right off.
First, that very well could be a large part of the reason your 40 person company doesn't need a CEO (a monoculture, either way), but you would certainly be a fool to say it out loud. The problem comes when your "people who are right" don't happen to include any black people for whatever reason. The assumption is you intended what you just said, and we see your own reaction to that.
But labor laws don't really prevent other forms of discrimination, based on things like incompetence, lack of qualifications, or bad behavior.
But those are not the things that you'd need to select for to make your 40 person CEO-less company continue to work at 100 persons. It's not just an issue of qualifications or "bad behaviour." It's "able to work well in a leaderless environment." Not just that, but "work well in THIS leaderless environment". That means you may wind up selecting someone from a majority who is less qualified over a minority with much better qualifications, or vice versa. Or selecting only men, or only women. THAT is a recipe for an EOE lawsuit whether you're actually discriminating against a protected class or not.
Statistics are how this stuff is measured, because looking at each case individually by regulators is too hard. It applies in hiring, and Title IX, bank loans, and all kinds of places. Anything that makes the stats unbalanced is prima facia evidence of wrongdoing, even if the reason is as simple as "no women applied." Obviously you discriminated in the job announcement to dissuade women, then. If your selection criteria for "this leaderless workplace" happen to result in a statistical anomaly for any reason, you're a target.
So I think that this could work in the US, at least in companies that are run well and have a good senior staff.
If you have the right 40 people, you can have a company run in any style you select for. It takes the right 40 people.
Now grow the company to 100, which means you have to hire another 60. With the EOE and labor laws in the US, do you think you can discriminate against the people who aren't right? Now you have a good percentage of employees who don't fit that management style, and the company fails.
a single CEO. It seems like you could still have a board of senior staff who votes on issues,
So you've replaced a single CEO with the results of a vote between a few "senior staff". That leaves the rest of the company "not in charge".
That's right, but not because they divided the tasks of the CEO amongst the board. The board, according to the BBC article, only steps in if there is a problem. The mundane tasks of the CEO are done by other people in the company.
But they've lost the one task that a CEO should have: vision. What is the focus and vision for the company? And if the board steps in when this becomes a problem, then they are the CEO en-mass. If one of the employees decides that the company should be making widget X and the board has to step in and say "making X would dilute our brand and isn't our specialty so stop", then they have been the CEO.
The article has this wonderful quote:
But what if the rest of the staff feel that one worker has made a terrible decision?
Ms Sundman says that is okay. "At least you did the thing that was right in the moment..."
No, I think if it was a terrible decision then it was, by definition, not the "thing that was right". And they show a couple of "hand gestures" to be used in meetings that say "move forward" (green) and "block" (red). But the red gesture is also supposed to mean "I'm willing to discuss this". What if someone thinks something is such a terrible idea (and not right at all, much less "in the moment") that it is non-negotiable and merits no discussion?
Bullshit. This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
First, it wasn't this morning, it was in 2012. This is 2017. And second, the supreme court has never made a mistake? Really? Do you want to argue that?
On the one hand, TFS quotes Pai as saying enabling the FM Radios is a "public safety issue". On the other hand, he says that the government has no place in dictating carriers turn the radio on.
Both are facts. They do not contradict each other.
the government does have a mandate to make sure those carriers are acting in the public's, as well as their shareholders', interests.
The government has no more authority to demand that cell phone companies provide you an FM radio than they do to require you to buy a cellphone that has one, or to buy a 72 hour kit, or to buy lots of other things. That's one reason why ACA was unconstitutional -- there is no authority in the constitution for the US government to force people to buy a commercial product -- and why it created a horrible precedent.
In 3rd world it's hard to get more than 150 metres from a phone.
No. The third world includes a lot of places like Africa where there aren't many people at all in very large areas. Maybe you're thinking of second world?
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed all the "not me" haven't given a single location where there is competition for the copper lines or competition for the coax.
We've already told you why. Your demand is irrelevant to the actual topic, which is not "copper line provider", but ISP. The fact you cannot imagine any other ISP than what comes over a copper pair via DSL is your problem and does not a monopoly ISP make. Given that you also seem to recognize "coax provider" as another way to connect to a different ISP but can't fathom that it proves ISP is not a monopoly makes the discussion pointless.
I should be able to get that speed most of the time from a Google server that is across the country.
Your ISP cannot guarantee, and should not be expected to do so, data speeds to any service that is not on the network controlled by that ISP. You "should be able to" is an admission that sometimes you won't, and that would break any promised fixed data rate.
Unfortunatelly, the advertised speed seems to be only to the IPS' own speed test servers which the ISP has tweeked to maximize internal ISP traffic.
Yes, which is logical. The ISP controls only their own network. Thus, speed tests can only show ISP data rates when run on the ISP network exclusively. You sound like you don't want the ISP to tweek internal data speeds on its own network.
And just to be clear, I don't feel that "this data doesn't count against your service limits" isn't prioritizing;
One too many negatives. I don't feel it IS.
So that somehow sets precedent making it okay for, say, Comcast to delay or throttle Netflix packets, or CBS streaming video packets, because they're a competitor?
Congestion at a border gateway obeys the law of net neutrality, for it is source agnostic.
Or to charge an extra fee to consumers so that trottling or delay doesn't happen?
Suppose I buy a 1Mbps down service from my ISP. Should I object to having to paying "an extra fee" (paying for 10Mbps) so that my streaming Netflix never buffers? The idea of paying more for a better Internet connection is not a violation of net neutrality, but that sure sounds like what you're saying.
If I wanted to watch pay-per-view from my ISP (also a video provider, so a competitor to netflix) I always got perfect quality.
Pay-per-view from Comcast was not delivered using the Internet. It was part of the television data stream. It does not traverse a border router to get to you. Apples and oranges.
This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low.
They didn't upgrade all their border routers when Netflix traffic was a major source of congestion. The bandwidth to Netflix did not change compared to bandwidth to anyone else.
The only 'implementation' of 'Net Neutrality' that is valid, is the one where no data packet gets prioritized or delayed any more than any other data packet. Pretending there's any other definition of 'net neutrality' is at best disingenuous.
That ridiculous definition of net neutrality is why there can never be regulation of net neutrality that makes any sense.
There are other valid definitions which are actually reasonable, such as "equivalent data services are not prioritized based on source". But when people see net neutrality with the zealous definition that you use, they are setting themselves up for disappointment. It's not a reasonable goal to begin with; getting the government involved in making it happen is a disaster waiting to happen.
And just to be clear, I don't feel that "this data doesn't count against your service limits" isn't prioritizing; "this data gets to you are full data rate, theirs is arbitrarily slowed down" is.
So far as this subject goes, hope you all enjoyed the Golden Age of the Internet, because it's now drawing to a close.
Sky falls, film at 11.
I think it would be better if they simply stated that: 1. If you advertise X speed, then the users gets X speed, every time, all the time.
Who do I sue if I connect to a website to download something and only get 100kbps instead of the 100Mbps I pay for? Can I sue the website's ISP because they are the bottleneck?
2. Get rid of this, "Up To" bullshit. no one is interested in some speed you might get once in a while.
Designing a network to provide 100% service levels is horribly expensive. Not even the POTS network was designed this way. You always design to a certain level of service and then expect some congestion. A 100% service level would mean that if you have just 10,000 100Mbps customers you would need to have 1Tbps in border bandwidth 100% of the time.
The current "up to" ratings are specifically BECAUSE of regulation. You will never get rid of such definitions until you get rid of truth in advertising laws. Considering that no ISP can fully control the bandwidth availability from their customers to the outside world, they cannot promise any specific bandwidth at 100%. Like I asked at the start, who do I get to sue when I only get 100kbps on my 100Mbps line?
3. No traffic is EVER restricted for ANY reason.
TCP/IP was designed with this ability for a reason.
4. If you can't support your sales pitch, then either build out to where you can or change your pitch.
And pay the price for that level of service. I don't like paying that much more for 100% guarantees of something that I only need occasionally. I personally don't care that my email isn't delivered in a fraction of a microsecond because my neighbor is using a real-time protocol that needs low latency, or that the web page I am looking at takes two seconds to load instead of one because someone is streaming an HD movie.
ISPs are generally monopolies.
Sorry, but no. When there is more than one of them, it's not a monopoly.
Everywhere I've lived in the US, there has been only one company owning copper to an address, and only one company who could legally provide coax to an address.
So that's two ISPs to start with, and since "ISP" is not synonymous with "copper" or "coax", there are actually many more. I can name four just in this small city without even trying. That's without considering the major backbone providers like Level 3. In fact, right where I am sitting, I currently personally deal with five different ISPs, and through work I access three more. Eight competing ISPs. How is that a monopoly in any way, shape, or form?
Where do you live where you can get cable Internet at a single address from multiple companies?
Non-sequitor. "Cable television" is an economic monopoly (defacto, not dejure) and that medium can be used to provide internet service, but is hardly the only ISP. The local telco is a monopoly and can provide ISP services, but is not the only ISP.
Nowhere in the US I've ever seen. Zero competition (often enforced by law) is a monopoly.
I've never been anyplace in the US where there is zero competition between ISPs. There is NO PLACE in the US where an ISP has a legal monopoly. Not a single one. "Enforced by law" is hyperbole.
or a duopoly if you consider copper and coax to be the same thing.
The topic is "ISP", not "distribution medium". You cannot be in the US without ISP competition. You're stuck on thinking that "Comcast" or "Telco" are the only two ISPs in any town, and that's just not "informative" in any way. "Two" isn't how "monopoly" is defined to start with, and when you count them all, "two" doesn't even begin to cover it. There are so many possible ISPs that trying to call any one of them a "monopoly" is just ridiculous.
ISPs are utilities and should be regulated as such
The difference is that utilities are typically a monopoly and ISPs are not. Yes, we should certainly add more regulation to someone who wants to run an ISP so that it is even harder for competition to exist, not.
Wouldn't it be nice to pull into the garage, go inside, and the garage charges my car. Nothing to plug in...
There are much safer and cheaper ways to do this than to turn your entire garage into a high-power magnet. E.g., two plates in the floor that match two contacts on the bottom of your car to provide charging power. Or a coil in the floor that aligns with a coil on the car for a more focused transfer of energy.
Or drive a regular car. When I pull into my garage there is nothing to plug in. I have a patent on that no-plug system.
Oregon, land of mandatory full service,
ROTFL. You don't know anything about Oregon.
What US are you talking about? I haven't had to pre-pay for gas in PA, MD, NY, or VA in over 15 years.
Oregon. Are you paying in cash or credit?
Yeah, but from the carrier, not Amazon (who can't control it).
Amazon knows very well it cannot make the delivery promise in many cases using the delivery method they choose, so yes, they do control it. You know they control it because they will often mark the shipment as "delivered" when you track it, even though it doesn't arrive until the next day.
They'll usually overnight products at no charge if you're annoyed enough to write them
I went through that process for a $25 item that they said would arrive Monday but didn't. I would have preferred some money back on the order, but I wound up having the hassle of returning one of the original when it finally did show up. "Keep it to make up for the inconvenience" would have been nice.
As to the original question: Amazon has two big outs they use when promising "second day" delivery. First, if the delivery is via USPS, they consider the item delivered when it arrives at the local post office, not at your house. And they often promise "second day by EIGHT PM", which means that any delivery to a commercial address where the receiving dept. goes home at 5PM is actually at least three day. And they know when an address is commercial.
Its the same reason I keep my wallet in my pocket until the cashier has rung up my total at a brick&mortar.
Then don't go to a gas station in the US. Almost all of them in this area have gone to a "pre-pay" mode, where they think you must be a criminal who will drive away without paying unless they make you pay first. Of course, when you want to fill up, you have to guess how much it will take. If you guess low, you don't get a fill. If you pay too much, you have to trust them to give you the excess back.
I stopped at one such station the other day (because the Shell in town that doesn't pull this crap was closed already) and walked inside, expecting that they would realize I wasn't going to drive off if I was inside the store. Nope. After about five minutes of waiting for gas, and telling the checkout girl I was waiting on pump 2, the attendant walks back in and tells me he isn't going to pump anything until I pay.
A pox on such people.
marketing that actually figures out the actual preferences of consumers and only targets them with relevant content.
You mean like when I search for something on Amazon and I get shown ads for the same stuff when I visit my local newspaper's website? That kind of irrelevant garbage intrusion on privacy?
A large part of your response seems like you think you're arguing with me,
Were I arguing with you, I'd tell you why you were wrong, not why you were right.
I don't see why not, as long as your definition of "people who aren't right" isn't about race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Here's where you are wrong. It is easy for any significant filter on subjective qualities to be interpreted as illegal.
That is, if your objection is something like, "This won't work once you have black employees!" then you should fuck right off.
First, that very well could be a large part of the reason your 40 person company doesn't need a CEO (a monoculture, either way), but you would certainly be a fool to say it out loud. The problem comes when your "people who are right" don't happen to include any black people for whatever reason. The assumption is you intended what you just said, and we see your own reaction to that.
But labor laws don't really prevent other forms of discrimination, based on things like incompetence, lack of qualifications, or bad behavior.
But those are not the things that you'd need to select for to make your 40 person CEO-less company continue to work at 100 persons. It's not just an issue of qualifications or "bad behaviour." It's "able to work well in a leaderless environment." Not just that, but "work well in THIS leaderless environment". That means you may wind up selecting someone from a majority who is less qualified over a minority with much better qualifications, or vice versa. Or selecting only men, or only women. THAT is a recipe for an EOE lawsuit whether you're actually discriminating against a protected class or not.
Statistics are how this stuff is measured, because looking at each case individually by regulators is too hard. It applies in hiring, and Title IX, bank loans, and all kinds of places. Anything that makes the stats unbalanced is prima facia evidence of wrongdoing, even if the reason is as simple as "no women applied." Obviously you discriminated in the job announcement to dissuade women, then. If your selection criteria for "this leaderless workplace" happen to result in a statistical anomaly for any reason, you're a target.
That's not having a (one) CEO.
No, it's having a single board that acts as CEO.
It is still a long way from "nobody is in charge." And when it comes to filing legal paperwork, you can be sure there is "someone in charge".
So I think that this could work in the US, at least in companies that are run well and have a good senior staff.
If you have the right 40 people, you can have a company run in any style you select for. It takes the right 40 people.
Now grow the company to 100, which means you have to hire another 60. With the EOE and labor laws in the US, do you think you can discriminate against the people who aren't right? Now you have a good percentage of employees who don't fit that management style, and the company fails.
a single CEO. It seems like you could still have a board of senior staff who votes on issues,
So you've replaced a single CEO with the results of a vote between a few "senior staff". That leaves the rest of the company "not in charge".
They're only pretending they don't have a CEO.
That's right, but not because they divided the tasks of the CEO amongst the board. The board, according to the BBC article, only steps in if there is a problem. The mundane tasks of the CEO are done by other people in the company.
But they've lost the one task that a CEO should have: vision. What is the focus and vision for the company? And if the board steps in when this becomes a problem, then they are the CEO en-mass. If one of the employees decides that the company should be making widget X and the board has to step in and say "making X would dilute our brand and isn't our specialty so stop", then they have been the CEO.
The article has this wonderful quote:
No, I think if it was a terrible decision then it was, by definition, not the "thing that was right". And they show a couple of "hand gestures" to be used in meetings that say "move forward" (green) and "block" (red). But the red gesture is also supposed to mean "I'm willing to discuss this". What if someone thinks something is such a terrible idea (and not right at all, much less "in the moment") that it is non-negotiable and merits no discussion?
Bullshit. This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
First, it wasn't this morning, it was in 2012. This is 2017. And second, the supreme court has never made a mistake? Really? Do you want to argue that?
Android only has them turned on if you get an unlocked or non-carrier specific/marketed variant.
Every smart phone I've owned, both unbranded and branded, have had FM tuners enabled.
On the one hand, TFS quotes Pai as saying enabling the FM Radios is a "public safety issue". On the other hand, he says that the government has no place in dictating carriers turn the radio on.
Both are facts. They do not contradict each other.
the government does have a mandate to make sure those carriers are acting in the public's, as well as their shareholders', interests.
The government has no more authority to demand that cell phone companies provide you an FM radio than they do to require you to buy a cellphone that has one, or to buy a 72 hour kit, or to buy lots of other things. That's one reason why ACA was unconstitutional -- there is no authority in the constitution for the US government to force people to buy a commercial product -- and why it created a horrible precedent.
It requires the use of wired earphones because the wire acts as the FM radio antenna. The FCC cannot change that.
In 3rd world it's hard to get more than 150 metres from a phone.
No. The third world includes a lot of places like Africa where there aren't many people at all in very large areas. Maybe you're thinking of second world?