So that means no more monopoly deals with local government that prevents competing providers.
Very few had them to start with, but they're already prohibited. 47 USC 541(a)(1) reads:
(1) A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.
No more fighting against efforts by Google and others (including local municipalities) to roll out fast broadband.
Local municipalities are inherently unfair competition and the costs are unfairly spread onto the taxpayers -- even those who have no interest in internet service. (You start with cable companies and then switch to rules for internet providers, I noticed.) The incumbent cable company cannot stop Google if Google wishes to agree to the provisions of the existing franchise ordinances. They typically want to cherry pick when the franchisee has coverage requirements, or avoid certain services the incumbent is required to provide.
Comcast has a government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle,
No, they don't. They have a non-exclusive franchise agreement. From the actual franchise itself, paragraph 1.4(A) on page 5:
The City reserves the right to grant additional franchises or similar authorizations
to provide Video Programming services via Cable Systems or similar wireline systems located in
the Right of Way.
And in paragraph 20.6:
20.6 Other Cable Franchises.
The City shall not be limited or prevented by any provision in this Franchise from issuing any
franchise, permit, license, or other agreement of any kind for all of Grantee's Franchise Area or
any portion thereof, to other Cable Operators. This provision shall not alter any rights of Grantee
under subsection 1.4 of this Franchise.
Pretty explicit. Not a government-granted monopoly. If someone else wants to come along and meet all the requirements for the franchise, they can get one, too.
but they don't offer service to a lot of Capitol Hill or many poor or mostly minority areas.
Then your city council was remiss in not including a mandatory coverage clause in the franchise.
it's generally easy enough to get an unlocked phone,
I just went through this process. I wanted a completely carrier-unencumbered phone. That means no carrier apps, no carrier limitations.
The only phone I could find like that were "international versions", and unfortunately while being completely carrier agnostic, they weren't really. Neither of the two I went through -- one was a demo unit with manufacturer data collection still installed, the other "international"-- had the specific 4G LTE bands T-Mobile uses.
So yes, you can get the phone. Whether it is fully compatible with the carrier you intend to use it with is another question.
And, of course the question of installing cyanogen or other upgrades isn't really whether the phone is unlocked, but whether it is rooted or not. I've sought out the rooting method for the phone I now have, and I sure wish it had TowelRoot. That's the first step for reprovisioning the international phone to turn on the LTE bands I need.
They can't afford to move now because they're wage slaves: they can't afford to lose their job because they're living paycheck-to-paycheck and have no money to do anything differently.
So BMI is going to be less than they're making today and they won't be able to afford it tomorrow, either.
It only takes a small minority of people creating hugely successful enterprises
The VC analysis uses the number "10%" doing this. There aren't 10% doing it today, and there won't be 10% tomorrow, especially when it's only 10% who are working at all. I suppose if 90% of the people are smoking pot all day then anything those 10% do will be "creative" and "hugely successful". Kinda like the old saying that "in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king."
Wow, you anti-BI people are an incredibly stupid lot.
And you pro-BMI people are insulting and rely on ad hominem too much.
I'm sure rich people will be perfectly happy to live on $1k a month in a tiny apartment with roommates...
I think I already pointed out, they AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT. They'll take the free money and add a bit of their own and live pretty well. Much better than 90% of the people who will be making just $1k/month. You can live pretty well on $3k/month when everyone else is at $1k. That's just $24k/year. A guy with a million in the bank can go 41 YEARS without working another day on that "income", even assuming that his bank account isn't paying any interest at all. And a million in the bank doesn't make someone really rich these days.
And you think that people who make $1/month will have enough money to pick up stakes and move around?
So if that basic monthly paycheck (which isn't going to be a whole lot by NYC standards) isn't enough for you, then you need to pack up and move somewhere cheaper.
That doesn't happen a lot today, so why would it happen under the new regime? People who cannot afford to live where they do now rarely just up and move; they prefer to sit and whine about how the cost of living is too high and there needs to be a higher minimum wage.
But guess what? Now that you have a guaranteed basic monthly income, you have money to move,
If the "basic monthly income" includes moving expenses, then it is already too high. No, people on BMI aren't going to have enough money to move - voluntarily.
the problem is the danger of losing your job and that paycheck, and not finding a new one in the new location. BI solves that.
BMI does nothing to create jobs. It does away with a large amount of consumption, so demands for everything will drop. With no demand, companies that have jobs will have layoffs. Those people will all join the low income BMI folks, buying less and enjoying life less. Saying that BMI solves the employment problem is like promising "if you like you job, you can keep your job."
But the failure of the VC analysis is pretty obvious. "if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,". That assumes that the workers are all creative and creating wealth, and that just isn't going to happen. The guy who goes to work at Mickey D's to be able to afford better pot isn't creating incredible new products or wealth.
As for the other poster who claims that BMI means people won't be trapped by their jobs, well, you're wrong. People who work at a job they like will be trapped in that job just like always. Otherwise, they'll be taking a job just to have a job doing something they don't like. Is that better or worse than doing something you do?
Sure, if you're working just to get a paycheck, it doesn't matter where that is, as long as there is a job there. Even if Beyond Anyplace, Wyoming gets a sudden population increase because the rents are affordable on BMI, that doesn't mean there are going to be enough jobs for everyone who shows up. And, of course, those who have jobs and can afford higher rents will drive the rent up, forcing BMI recipients to go somewhere else.
It's pixie dust and unicorns. It isn't going to work. And it isn't going to get rid of the rich people; they'll just stop working and take the free money. They can live much longer on their bank accounts when the government is given them a guaranteed income to cover the basics.
That's right. They would have allowed me to turn in my set-top box whether or not I was getting a cableCARD, and that was years ago. Allowing "some customers" to "ditch" their STB is not news.
Nor is the fact that Comcast will allow customers to watch content online. I've had the Xfinity app for a long time. And over the net. The fact that Xfinity content can be viewed online is not news.
Eh? The VAST majority of franchise agreements in Ohio were exclusives for a class of service (ie phone vs cable)
I have yet to see an exclusive cable franchise, despite asking for links to one every time this discussion about "monopolies" comes up. Yes, the phone companies have exclusive franchises based on a long history, but every cable franchise I've seen has been explicitly non-exclusive.
You are talking about your internet service, which is not the same as a cable franchise. I know of no ISP franchises, and there are plenty of ISPs. I have at least two choices for ISP using DSL, for example.
The delivery system is franchised, however, but the cable side is non-exclusive.
The problem with lead is that it is not expelled from the body.
But the fact that it is not expelled is not why it is a poison.
I answered your original question: " if it could be absorbed and expelled intact by both humans and crops, how could it have any biological effect?" Lots of drugs are expelled intact and have biological effect because being metabolized is not how they impact the system. Many are metabolized by the liver while the original drug moderates a system in the brain or other organs. Many are simply filtered out by the kidneys intact.
If you want another metallic example, try potassium. Or sodium. Too much of either will kill you; both are regularly expelled intact.
The corrupt local/municipal/state authorities grant and protect the monopolies.
No, they don't. The franchises are non-exclusive. That's not a monopoly. You want to meed the standards of the franchise ordinances, you can get a franchise, too.
The only monopoly involved is the defacto one created by economic realities. You can't legislate that monopoly away.
Biological effect does not require a chemical to break down in the process. Most drugs are eliminated after being broken down, but their effect comes from interacting with the systems while they are whole. Or sometimes, the metabolic products are what interact with the system.
But if you want a perfect example of something that doesn't break down but has a serious effect: lead. Your body doesn't convert lead to anything but lead. Wouldn't it be great if our bodies had nuclear reactors that could split lead into something else?
But anyway, what's the problem with this carb-whatever? Isn't it good that everyone will be less likely to have seizures?
You can't take away a monopoly status that wasn't granted by the government. I.e., you can't just "take away" a defacto monopoly. To do so, you'd have to force other companies to compete.
This. I have no idea why this is news, or what is new about it. They were quite happy to let me turn in my set-top box in exchange for a cablecard. That was two years ago, now.
The only not-fantastic part of the problem is that HD View cannot keep up with HD content on either of my PCs, and SiliconDust dropped support for HD Quick TV. I'm now using VLC which seems able to keep up.
You agreed to the "terms and conditions" of the cab company that they may scan your luggage and proceed as appropriate when they detect something dangerous.
Wrong.
This is similar to the discrimination situation.
Joking about a payment being for ISIS isn't a discrimination situation.
A fairly large percentage of the population (generally) have vehicles because of the failure to build impractically expensive public transit from city to city.
Your description is right.
I grew up in a part of Michigan that bitterly resented the abuse of tax money sent to Detroit to build its infrastructure. A particularly well-remembered such event was when Detroit got state taxpayer money to build a moving sidewalk -- what we referred lovingly to as "the mugger mover". The general opinion was that rural taxpayers were being abused to pay for lazy city folks who couldn't walk down the sidewalk on their own power.
A different part of the reason is that many US cities were developed with wide streets because space was cheap. Many European cities were created in historic times when the lord (and his people) wanted to pack as much stuff as they could inside the city walls for defense, leading to narrow winding streets that aren't well suited to cars at all. This drove public transport there; car-capable, regularly gridded streets in the US removed the pressure for it.
Right. So if your local movie chain (or insert any other commercial operation) puts some obscure rainy day clause in small writing on the movie ticket,
Of course I will complain about it. But I won't try claiming that watching a movie in their theater is some kind of essential right. I'll take them to small claims if I need to, but small claims court isn't about enforcing "essential rights", it's about enforcing contracts and reasonable terms in such. Like the fitness of purpose, etc.
This is about the right to not be defrauded.
I'm sorry, what? You forgot about the right of free people to enter into contracts here.
If you want to live in a capitalistic society, this is the one thing you need to ensure it doesn't completely collapse.
You need to ensure that contracts don't contain invalid or one-sided terms, but once that's done, the law should end. Trying to claim that seeing a movie is an essential right is far outside of the scope of the law.
You want to dismiss the word "ISIS" as irrelevant to the transfer, but don't see that "beer fund" could be just as irrelevant to the actual transfer. Not that any of it was serious, but joking with people you know have absolutely no sense of humor is not a productive occupation, and complaining when they don't exhibit the sense of humor you knew they didn't have is a waste of time.
I'm more concerned, why would a pitcher of any beer cost $21? You have to be nuts to pay that much.
thanks in parts to lower incentives in the US (gas price is too low).
No, thanks for the most part to the vast empty spaces where the population density simply will not support mass transit except at ridiculous costs to the taxpayer in subsidies. In the big cities where the density is sufficient, mass transport is there.
In most of Europe, it is a very short distance, if any, from one city to the next. In the US, there are places where you can drive 100 miles and not be anywhere.
For the issue of how they drive into another country, well, when they want to go on vacation they can rent a car (either gas or electric) much cheaper for those short time periods than maintaining a car they they don't otherwise really need.
This isn't a big deal. The Netherlands is a small country with a dense mass transit (train and bus) system. If where you're going isn't close enough to walk, then it will be right on the train line. If you are courageous, you can ride for free. (The bus driver will catch you if you try it on a bus, though.)
Or you can bike. Or you can skate on a canal in the winter. Nobody in Holland needs cars.
If it bans any algorithm "that can't be decrypted on demand to their original state", that pretty cuts out MP3s,
It talks about "intelligible information". E.g., the law requires that a recipient of a court order:
provide such information or data to
such government in an intelligible format; or
MP3s can be made into intelligible information by a very very large number of programs and devices. You might even say that there are so many programs and devices that use MP3s that mp3 IS an intelligible format all by itself. And the same with streaming video, TV, etc that the other poster worries about. And the same for "file compression" as in the title.
I'm sorry, but the worry that this law covers "lossy compression" is just a waste of time and is complete FUD.
Why? I really do not understand what this desire to see random comments from people I don't know popping up on screen during a program or movie is all about.
The producer and director have spent a lot of time trying to create a mood that enhances the movie, and you'd pay extra to see snotty or snide comments pasted on the screen?
BBC America did this with the last season of Dr. Who. They ran the series normally, and the second time through they put up tweets from the viewers. Really? We're in the middle of a critical scene and I need to be distracted by a comment that FrodPerfect thinks this is the best scene in the show? Or SeuEllen points out the nice scarf that one of the extras is wearing?
I watched exactly one episode like this and gave up.
Now, if you're talking about campy schlock that has been around for two decades or more, like Svengoolie or MST3K shows, then yeah, the comments are the show. But first-release or first rerun?
This makes about as much sense as a director paying people to stand just off-camera shining bright lights into the lens to create lens flare. And I'm talking to you, Abrams. Every flash doesn't enhance the video, it simply reminds the viewer that they're looking through a camera at a set of actors and not really looking into a real event. Same with tagged tweets.
You only have true competition, when there are multiple providers with access to the same kind of service medium;
The competition comes from the same service; the medium is irrelevant. The internet and ebooks and e-magazines have put local magazine stores out of business. The medium is vary different, but the competition is very very real. And Amazon and other online stores have put a lot of brick-and-mortars out of business through competition. Medium, again, is very very different.
Customers who want broadband don't really care if the medium is cable or wireless if the service is the same. They don't care if the telephone they use is VoIP or copper pair, as long as the service they want is the same. The competition is medium-agnostic.
Slashdot Mirror
So that means no more monopoly deals with local government that prevents competing providers.
Very few had them to start with, but they're already prohibited. 47 USC 541(a)(1) reads:
No more fighting against efforts by Google and others (including local municipalities) to roll out fast broadband.
Local municipalities are inherently unfair competition and the costs are unfairly spread onto the taxpayers -- even those who have no interest in internet service. (You start with cable companies and then switch to rules for internet providers, I noticed.) The incumbent cable company cannot stop Google if Google wishes to agree to the provisions of the existing franchise ordinances. They typically want to cherry pick when the franchisee has coverage requirements, or avoid certain services the incumbent is required to provide.
Comcast has a government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle,
No, they don't. They have a non-exclusive franchise agreement. From the actual franchise itself, paragraph 1.4(A) on page 5:
And in paragraph 20.6:
Pretty explicit. Not a government-granted monopoly. If someone else wants to come along and meet all the requirements for the franchise, they can get one, too.
but they don't offer service to a lot of Capitol Hill or many poor or mostly minority areas.
Then your city council was remiss in not including a mandatory coverage clause in the franchise.
Your statement so few phones are 4G LTE capable is very surprising to me.
Surprising to me, too, since I didn't say that. I said out of the two "unlocked" phones I tried, neither did the right bands for T-Mobile LTE.
it's generally easy enough to get an unlocked phone,
I just went through this process. I wanted a completely carrier-unencumbered phone. That means no carrier apps, no carrier limitations.
The only phone I could find like that were "international versions", and unfortunately while being completely carrier agnostic, they weren't really. Neither of the two I went through -- one was a demo unit with manufacturer data collection still installed, the other "international"-- had the specific 4G LTE bands T-Mobile uses.
So yes, you can get the phone. Whether it is fully compatible with the carrier you intend to use it with is another question.
And, of course the question of installing cyanogen or other upgrades isn't really whether the phone is unlocked, but whether it is rooted or not. I've sought out the rooting method for the phone I now have, and I sure wish it had TowelRoot. That's the first step for reprovisioning the international phone to turn on the LTE bands I need.
They can't afford to move now because they're wage slaves: they can't afford to lose their job because they're living paycheck-to-paycheck and have no money to do anything differently.
So BMI is going to be less than they're making today and they won't be able to afford it tomorrow, either.
It only takes a small minority of people creating hugely successful enterprises
The VC analysis uses the number "10%" doing this. There aren't 10% doing it today, and there won't be 10% tomorrow, especially when it's only 10% who are working at all. I suppose if 90% of the people are smoking pot all day then anything those 10% do will be "creative" and "hugely successful". Kinda like the old saying that "in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king."
Wow, you anti-BI people are an incredibly stupid lot.
And you pro-BMI people are insulting and rely on ad hominem too much.
I'm sure rich people will be perfectly happy to live on $1k a month in a tiny apartment with roommates...
I think I already pointed out, they AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT. They'll take the free money and add a bit of their own and live pretty well. Much better than 90% of the people who will be making just $1k/month. You can live pretty well on $3k/month when everyone else is at $1k. That's just $24k/year. A guy with a million in the bank can go 41 YEARS without working another day on that "income", even assuming that his bank account isn't paying any interest at all. And a million in the bank doesn't make someone really rich these days.
And you think that people who make $1/month will have enough money to pick up stakes and move around?
So if that basic monthly paycheck (which isn't going to be a whole lot by NYC standards) isn't enough for you, then you need to pack up and move somewhere cheaper.
That doesn't happen a lot today, so why would it happen under the new regime? People who cannot afford to live where they do now rarely just up and move; they prefer to sit and whine about how the cost of living is too high and there needs to be a higher minimum wage.
But guess what? Now that you have a guaranteed basic monthly income, you have money to move,
If the "basic monthly income" includes moving expenses, then it is already too high. No, people on BMI aren't going to have enough money to move - voluntarily.
the problem is the danger of losing your job and that paycheck, and not finding a new one in the new location. BI solves that.
BMI does nothing to create jobs. It does away with a large amount of consumption, so demands for everything will drop. With no demand, companies that have jobs will have layoffs. Those people will all join the low income BMI folks, buying less and enjoying life less. Saying that BMI solves the employment problem is like promising "if you like you job, you can keep your job."
But the failure of the VC analysis is pretty obvious. "if 10% of the people go create incredible new products and services and new wealth, that's still a huge net-win,". That assumes that the workers are all creative and creating wealth, and that just isn't going to happen. The guy who goes to work at Mickey D's to be able to afford better pot isn't creating incredible new products or wealth.
As for the other poster who claims that BMI means people won't be trapped by their jobs, well, you're wrong. People who work at a job they like will be trapped in that job just like always. Otherwise, they'll be taking a job just to have a job doing something they don't like. Is that better or worse than doing something you do?
Sure, if you're working just to get a paycheck, it doesn't matter where that is, as long as there is a job there. Even if Beyond Anyplace, Wyoming gets a sudden population increase because the rents are affordable on BMI, that doesn't mean there are going to be enough jobs for everyone who shows up. And, of course, those who have jobs and can afford higher rents will drive the rent up, forcing BMI recipients to go somewhere else.
It's pixie dust and unicorns. It isn't going to work. And it isn't going to get rid of the rich people; they'll just stop working and take the free money. They can live much longer on their bank accounts when the government is given them a guaranteed income to cover the basics.
Because this has nothing to do with CableCards?
That's right. They would have allowed me to turn in my set-top box whether or not I was getting a cableCARD, and that was years ago. Allowing "some customers" to "ditch" their STB is not news.
Nor is the fact that Comcast will allow customers to watch content online. I've had the Xfinity app for a long time. And over the net. The fact that Xfinity content can be viewed online is not news.
Eh? The VAST majority of franchise agreements in Ohio were exclusives for a class of service (ie phone vs cable)
I have yet to see an exclusive cable franchise, despite asking for links to one every time this discussion about "monopolies" comes up. Yes, the phone companies have exclusive franchises based on a long history, but every cable franchise I've seen has been explicitly non-exclusive.
You are talking about your internet service, which is not the same as a cable franchise. I know of no ISP franchises, and there are plenty of ISPs. I have at least two choices for ISP using DSL, for example.
The delivery system is franchised, however, but the cable side is non-exclusive.
The problem with lead is that it is not expelled from the body.
But the fact that it is not expelled is not why it is a poison.
I answered your original question: " if it could be absorbed and expelled intact by both humans and crops, how could it have any biological effect?" Lots of drugs are expelled intact and have biological effect because being metabolized is not how they impact the system. Many are metabolized by the liver while the original drug moderates a system in the brain or other organs. Many are simply filtered out by the kidneys intact.
If you want another metallic example, try potassium. Or sodium. Too much of either will kill you; both are regularly expelled intact.
The corrupt local/municipal/state authorities grant and protect the monopolies.
No, they don't. The franchises are non-exclusive. That's not a monopoly. You want to meed the standards of the franchise ordinances, you can get a franchise, too.
The only monopoly involved is the defacto one created by economic realities. You can't legislate that monopoly away.
But if you want a perfect example of something that doesn't break down but has a serious effect: lead. Your body doesn't convert lead to anything but lead. Wouldn't it be great if our bodies had nuclear reactors that could split lead into something else?
But anyway, what's the problem with this carb-whatever? Isn't it good that everyone will be less likely to have seizures?
You can't take away a monopoly status that wasn't granted by the government. I.e., you can't just "take away" a defacto monopoly. To do so, you'd have to force other companies to compete.
2. If you've never used a cable card, then you wouldn't realize that yes, there is a difference.
The only not-fantastic part of the problem is that HD View cannot keep up with HD content on either of my PCs, and SiliconDust dropped support for HD Quick TV. I'm now using VLC which seems able to keep up.
You agreed to the "terms and conditions" of the cab company that they may scan your luggage and proceed as appropriate when they detect something dangerous.
Wrong.
This is similar to the discrimination situation.
Joking about a payment being for ISIS isn't a discrimination situation.
A fairly large percentage of the population (generally) have vehicles because of the failure to build impractically expensive public transit from city to city.
Your description is right.
I grew up in a part of Michigan that bitterly resented the abuse of tax money sent to Detroit to build its infrastructure. A particularly well-remembered such event was when Detroit got state taxpayer money to build a moving sidewalk -- what we referred lovingly to as "the mugger mover". The general opinion was that rural taxpayers were being abused to pay for lazy city folks who couldn't walk down the sidewalk on their own power.
A different part of the reason is that many US cities were developed with wide streets because space was cheap. Many European cities were created in historic times when the lord (and his people) wanted to pack as much stuff as they could inside the city walls for defense, leading to narrow winding streets that aren't well suited to cars at all. This drove public transport there; car-capable, regularly gridded streets in the US removed the pressure for it.
Right. So if your local movie chain (or insert any other commercial operation) puts some obscure rainy day clause in small writing on the movie ticket,
Of course I will complain about it. But I won't try claiming that watching a movie in their theater is some kind of essential right. I'll take them to small claims if I need to, but small claims court isn't about enforcing "essential rights", it's about enforcing contracts and reasonable terms in such. Like the fitness of purpose, etc.
This is about the right to not be defrauded.
I'm sorry, what? You forgot about the right of free people to enter into contracts here.
If you want to live in a capitalistic society, this is the one thing you need to ensure it doesn't completely collapse.
You need to ensure that contracts don't contain invalid or one-sided terms, but once that's done, the law should end. Trying to claim that seeing a movie is an essential right is far outside of the scope of the law.
But of course, we live in an insane and unjust society where essential rights are allowed to be abrogated by contract law.
Using PayPal is an essential right?
You want to use their system, why shouldn't you agree to their terms? You aren't forced to use it. It's a convenience for you.
The biggest insanity of society today is the number of conveniences that people are now claiming as essential rights.
You paid $40 to wire yourself $100? Why not just take $100 bucks out of the bank, put three 20's into your pocket, and flush two 20's down the toilet?
I'm more concerned, why would a pitcher of any beer cost $21? You have to be nuts to pay that much.
thanks in parts to lower incentives in the US (gas price is too low).
No, thanks for the most part to the vast empty spaces where the population density simply will not support mass transit except at ridiculous costs to the taxpayer in subsidies. In the big cities where the density is sufficient, mass transport is there.
In most of Europe, it is a very short distance, if any, from one city to the next. In the US, there are places where you can drive 100 miles and not be anywhere.
For the issue of how they drive into another country, well, when they want to go on vacation they can rent a car (either gas or electric) much cheaper for those short time periods than maintaining a car they they don't otherwise really need.
But mostly, my comment was a joke.
Or you can bike. Or you can skate on a canal in the winter. Nobody in Holland needs cars.
If it bans any algorithm "that can't be decrypted on demand to their original state", that pretty cuts out MP3s,
It talks about "intelligible information". E.g., the law requires that a recipient of a court order:
MP3s can be made into intelligible information by a very very large number of programs and devices. You might even say that there are so many programs and devices that use MP3s that mp3 IS an intelligible format all by itself. And the same with streaming video, TV, etc that the other poster worries about. And the same for "file compression" as in the title.
I'm sorry, but the worry that this law covers "lossy compression" is just a waste of time and is complete FUD.
OK. I'd personally pay $5 more for this,
Why? I really do not understand what this desire to see random comments from people I don't know popping up on screen during a program or movie is all about. The producer and director have spent a lot of time trying to create a mood that enhances the movie, and you'd pay extra to see snotty or snide comments pasted on the screen?
BBC America did this with the last season of Dr. Who. They ran the series normally, and the second time through they put up tweets from the viewers. Really? We're in the middle of a critical scene and I need to be distracted by a comment that FrodPerfect thinks this is the best scene in the show? Or SeuEllen points out the nice scarf that one of the extras is wearing?
I watched exactly one episode like this and gave up.
Now, if you're talking about campy schlock that has been around for two decades or more, like Svengoolie or MST3K shows, then yeah, the comments are the show. But first-release or first rerun?
This makes about as much sense as a director paying people to stand just off-camera shining bright lights into the lens to create lens flare. And I'm talking to you, Abrams. Every flash doesn't enhance the video, it simply reminds the viewer that they're looking through a camera at a set of actors and not really looking into a real event. Same with tagged tweets.
You only have true competition, when there are multiple providers with access to the same kind of service medium;
The competition comes from the same service; the medium is irrelevant. The internet and ebooks and e-magazines have put local magazine stores out of business. The medium is vary different, but the competition is very very real. And Amazon and other online stores have put a lot of brick-and-mortars out of business through competition. Medium, again, is very very different.
Customers who want broadband don't really care if the medium is cable or wireless if the service is the same. They don't care if the telephone they use is VoIP or copper pair, as long as the service they want is the same. The competition is medium-agnostic.