With unlimited plans, the ISP's incentive is to prevent you from using up all your bandwidth, because infrastructure costs money, so if you used up all your neighborhood's bandwidth, they'd have to upgrade their network.
With a per-megabyte plan, the company's incentive is to provide you with more bandwidth than you could ever possibly need so that nothing will prevent you from downloading as much as possible.
If we want fast pipes, we should be asking for pay as you go data plans.
I dated a girl who had one of these and it really did destroy the relationship because she could only drive to work and home from work. I would have to drive out and pick her up since she had a restricted license after getting a DUI.
Was she not allowed to ride a bicycle? Or did the two of you live more than about 10 miles apart?
The concept of a slippery slope is most certainly not a fallacy. It is a proven fact that people will react less negatively to many smaller changes than to a single large one, even if the end result is the same.
You are correct in saying that people reacting less negatively to many smaller changes than to a single large one is not a fallacy. The fallacy part is the idea that one step on the slope inevitably leads to the next.
No matter how much you may think it, generalized poor management is not actually a criminal offense. Whereas, denial of service is.
But was it denial of service if physical access was never denied? If you have physical access to a machine, you can get the root password, or at least reset it. This is why they lock these things up.
With all the externalities added to the price of gasoline, I think we would see gas prices similar to Europe's, and we would find that their gas taxes are more fair than ours.
The vast majority of people have access to only one or two ISPs.
Here is the source of the graph in your link. It only allows for a maximum of 3 wireless providers ("either DSL or fiber, the cable incumbent and a cable over-builder"). It counts DSL as one provider, even though a customer with a DSL line may choose from multiple ISPs. It doesn't count leased lines, wireless ISPs, satellite broadband, or mobile broadband.
So it doesn't support your claim that most people have access to only one or two [broadband] ISPs.
The problem net neutrality addresses is backbone providers (who may not even be end-user-facing ISPs) discriminating in service based on where data is coming from or going to. This problem is not addressed by enabling alternative end-user-facing ISPs to use the local dominant provider's infrastructure.
Any ISP is free to choose any backbone in the nation, as long as it's willing to pay the line charge which varies by distance.
The vast majority of people have access to only one or two ISPs.
Please cite your source. I suspect it counts DSL as just one ISP, and doesn't mention satellite or cellular broadband or the availability of leased lines.
i keep wondering if one could turn a highway into a kind of electric railroad tho, by equipping electric vehicles with a system to tap supply system pretty much like a electric train do today.
It could be done. Install overhead wires on the highway, and equip the vehicles with trolley poles.
Lovely in theory, except for all the moronic teens who will delight in jumping out in front of Volvos confident that the car can't hit them. You're going to have idiot kids hit by drivers of old style cars...
That problem will solve itself when we run out of idiot kids or old style cars, whichever happens first.
You can't sit there and suggest we totally change our entire economy so that some new technology which isn't cost effective would suddenly become so....You can not stop doing A in order to do B without killing the economy.
Actually, the subsidies have already done that for us. They cause a market distortion which prevents the market from finding the most efficient form of transportation, and as a result we all pay more in the end. It's an example of the Broken Window Fallacy.
I wouldn't see a single autobahn lane as being practical nor safe...No, any experiment where there is a large difference in speed or ability between adjoining lanes of traffic should simply not exist.
What if our autobahn, like the German Autobahn, prohibited passing on the right, thus making the far right lane the slowest lane and the far left lane the fastest lane, eliminating large differences in speed between adjacent lanes of traffic?
We are also committed to building a high-speed train from Barstow to Lodi, at astonishing cost.
Even more astonishing than the cost of the $45 billion HSR line is the cost of the $80-150 billion alternative of expanding highways and airports just to move the same number of people.
It is not that far fetched to include strong customer protection of the kind PirateISP is doing in that set of rules.
A rule that every ISP must provide customer "protection" from law enforcement and court orders? What if I want to save money by going with a cheaper ISP that doesn't provide these unnecessary protections? Your proposed rule will prevent my ability to economize, and that makes it regressive.
Slashdot Mirror
With unlimited plans, the ISP's incentive is to prevent you from using up all your bandwidth, because infrastructure costs money, so if you used up all your neighborhood's bandwidth, they'd have to upgrade their network.
With a per-megabyte plan, the company's incentive is to provide you with more bandwidth than you could ever possibly need so that nothing will prevent you from downloading as much as possible.
If we want fast pipes, we should be asking for pay as you go data plans.
Was she not allowed to ride a bicycle? Or did the two of you live more than about 10 miles apart?
You are correct in saying that people reacting less negatively to many smaller changes than to a single large one is not a fallacy. The fallacy part is the idea that one step on the slope inevitably leads to the next.
But was it denial of service if physical access was never denied? If you have physical access to a machine, you can get the root password, or at least reset it. This is why they lock these things up.
If we (Americans) were to internalize all the negative externalities into the price of gasoline, how much would it cost? Add $20 per ton of CO2, which comes to 19 cents per gallon, for global warming. Add in the cost of air pollution, up to $1600 per person annually. Because gas taxes and user fees only make up 65% of the cost of the roads, add the other 35% into the cost of gasoline. And so on.
With all the externalities added to the price of gasoline, I think we would see gas prices similar to Europe's, and we would find that their gas taxes are more fair than ours.
Here is the source of the graph in your link. It only allows for a maximum of 3 wireless providers ("either DSL or fiber, the cable incumbent and a cable over-builder"). It counts DSL as one provider, even though a customer with a DSL line may choose from multiple ISPs. It doesn't count leased lines, wireless ISPs, satellite broadband, or mobile broadband.
So it doesn't support your claim that most people have access to only one or two [broadband] ISPs.
I did, but I had images turned off.
Being a commercial connection, you could hook it up to a wireless router and share the bandwidth, and the bill, with your neighbors.
Any ISP is free to choose any backbone in the nation, as long as it's willing to pay the line charge which varies by distance.
Please cite your source. I suspect it counts DSL as just one ISP, and doesn't mention satellite or cellular broadband or the availability of leased lines.
Then split the bandwidth and the bill with your neighbors.
If you don't like the phone company's Internet service, you don't have to choose them to send their bits over your T1 line.
It could be done. Install overhead wires on the highway, and equip the vehicles with trolley poles.
That problem will solve itself when we run out of idiot kids or old style cars, whichever happens first.
Actually, the subsidies have already done that for us. They cause a market distortion which prevents the market from finding the most efficient form of transportation, and as a result we all pay more in the end. It's an example of the Broken Window Fallacy.
If we were to use that as an excuse not to improve, someday we will find it is no longer true.
What if our autobahn, like the German Autobahn, prohibited passing on the right, thus making the far right lane the slowest lane and the far left lane the fastest lane, eliminating large differences in speed between adjacent lanes of traffic?
Even more astonishing than the cost of the $45 billion HSR line is the cost of the $80-150 billion alternative of expanding highways and airports just to move the same number of people.
The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
So the solution to the problem of a lack of enforcement is to add even more laws? I don't think that's going to work very well.
A rule that every ISP must provide customer "protection" from law enforcement and court orders? What if I want to save money by going with a cheaper ISP that doesn't provide these unnecessary protections? Your proposed rule will prevent my ability to economize, and that makes it regressive.
No, it's called being free to run your own ISP the way you want to, just like everyone else. The alternative is authoritarianism.
Don't worry, the airlines don't care if a competitor shoots themselves in the foot by offering airfares below cost.
And named him Edward Canopenerpaws.
False. Even if gas tax funds "were fully devoted to highways, total user fee revenue accounted for only 65 percent of all funds set aside for highways in 2007."
Sorry, I don't think I'll be using something to create HTML if it's written by people who can't write proper HTML.