You've got to know where to hold 'em ( Apple antenna) Know when to fold 'em (samsung disaster phone) Know when to walk away (Apple to Qualcom) And know when to run ( intel 5G) You never count your money ( Lyft stock price) When you're sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealin's done
"I interpreted "you" to mean "the people" as in "the citizens paying taxes.""
Fair enough, I can see that, but that is not what I was thinking then.
On psychopaths, yes, we need to watch all areas, govt and corp.
On regulations, this is why I believe that corporations should not be allowed to participate in politics, message or money wise. And why I think that donation limits are a good idea. Policy in a democracy should be set on the basis of what the whole electorate wants ( hopefully, they are smart/informed/invested enough ), not just what a few who wield some power want.
A, "Note also that when you voluntary give your money to a company to build the road..."
Where did the government come in? "You" and "company" were mentioned...
B, "Rand would never have had the government paying the corporations to build the road"
Rand would have the company do it with their own money, sure. But, look at what corp execs do with networking infrastructure. They dont serve certain areas, then they introduce laws to prevent those areas from handling the problem themselves. They work very hard to make sure that they can bill both their direct client, and bill others for access to their direct client ( never mind they would not have a service to sell if it were not for those "others" ). My point was that corporations are not the heroes very often. If you give any entity, government or corporation, or person too much control and not enough oversight, you will be screwed.
Note, I do not believe there is anything wrong with earning a profit. Even a large profit. Just dont be a psychopath about it.
When you give your money to a company to build the road, they will make sure they own the road. You will pay for it, though the nose, because they have you over a barrel. But they will own it And they will charge you extraordinary amounts of money to use it. You and everyone.
Sure, government needs to be watched ( so, why arent we watching ), but corporations need watching too. The Randian notion that corporate execs are uniformly stalwart pillars of truth, justice and fairness does not seem to apply. I wish like heck it did, but it dont.
"And they're gigantic beneficiaries from the broadband ecosystem."
The ISPs only exist because there are companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc that make having an internet connection desirable. Without them, there is no reason to pay an ISP. Who, really, is the "gigantic beneficiary" here?
If roads where private, would they tax stores? ( apparently, the answer is yes ).
It is a strangulation relation. It is extortion, not free trade.
"You can easy remove apps using powershell and its easy to set it up for friends to use. I dont have mail, edge and other crap apps installed. You can easy disable Cortana and most of the telemetry."
A, you have to use powershell to remove apps? What the heck? MS has a system for removing apps, that *should* work just fine
they are using your machine to monetize you. And you want to defend that?
B, the telemetry *should not be in there*. It is slowing things down and invading my privacy. It should not be in need of disabling.
If they really wanted it for debugging and problem solving, they would write trace data to my disk, and require my active permission before disclosing it.
"I get the feel that people who complain about win10 either don't know what they are doing. Don't know how to problem solve or are just jumping on the anti Microsoft bandwagon to be internet popular. I'm 50 years old, have over 30 years in IT and running Win10 isnt that hard. Oh, I'm sure I'll get modded down cause truth hurts."
It is possible to dislike some subset of Microsoft's decisions without being "anti Microsoft", and it is possible, as in my case, to have started out liking Microsoft very much, and grown to dislike some of their actions and decisions ( I believe ) on the (de)merits of those actions and decisions. I'm 54 and have been involved with computers for over 40 years, including a long stint in IT both operationally and as a programmer. I understand there are those who hate Microsoft without reason. There are also those who love Microsoft without reason.
Yes? Then there is no "Job Creator". There are people who purchase products from people who make products. Those who make products would not make them ( and hence would not "create jobs" ) if it were not for those people purchasing products. All the "Job Creator" does is stand in the middle and collect.
Job creation is based on demand which is based on purchasing, which is based, by and large, on massive numbers of people.
Wrong post? No, I responded to exactly the post I meant to.
Rage? Maybe a bit. Just really tired of that same old argument. "The ISPs need the money, or...".
And to say that ISPs have a right to extract money from content providers is nothing but extortion. The argument is simple. Pay me, or you wont reach your customers. The customers that paid you ( the ISP ) for access to the internet, not to ISP curated content. It is extortion.
If the ISPs need the money, they have customers who should be paying, directly, up front, nothing hidden.
Allowing the ISP to extort money from content providers will not prevent the consumer from paying a higher price. The extortion will just ensure that the ISP's get to pick winners and losers. And winners will get to enforce their "winning" And the ISP is not going to funnel that money into infrastructure in any case, it will go to profits. Profits are great, by the way. Go earn them.
The content providers have to pay their own ISP, they already have an incentive to keep the number of bits low, they have to pay their ISP.
You are prevented from going to a non-subsidized providers. There are few enough players now, a scheme such as yours will not increase that number.
No, the ISP is the interstate and the country roads.
The platforms are places ( libraries, store fronts, etc ) I might want to go to using the above. ISPs are attempting to become modern "highway men" making their money on allowing me ( really, not allowing me, unless the library or store front pays them ) to visit.
With AT&T prez saying "Netflix gotta stop using my tubez*" and carriers all over throttling based on provider of service to extort, yes, it was bad and getting worse.
Have they been proven wrong, or proven not to be perfect yet?
Physics in the late 1800's had enough on the ball to describe many things. Relativity, Quantum theory, etc, refined things further, and now we understand more. Is it perfect yet? No. Does it describe things better than the older models? Yes.
My point? If the models are moving closer to correct descriptions, they are "wrong", but still useful. Science is a process, not an arrival. I would suggest that climate models may well be "wrong", but are better than they were, and more useful than they were. They may not match your preferences, but there we are. If you believe the hypothesis are incorrect, perhaps you can build some models and show how they describe reality better?
From the person with the sig "taxes are enforced exactations, not voluntary contributions..." come that link.
How can you read that and not see the underlying scheme is to force the bandwidth purchaser to make a choice of product based on extortion?
They artificially make competing products more expensive by essentially "taxing" the "foreign" product. ( an aside, you mention offering new services, you should know full well that these impounds make it harder for new services to start, yes? )
I purchase bandwidth to access products of my choosing. The goal of Network Neutrality is fully in support of that, so, while less regulation is better, there is a minimum that is required, and the carriers are proving that it is required by their statements and their actions.
Further, investment requires money from their customers. They have a natural and honest manner in which to gain that money. They get to chose the pricing they place on their product. And in most cases, they face little or no competition. So, why don't they charge their customers amounts commensurate with the level of investment they feel they need, in an aboveboard manner?
Why do they have to be underhanded and try to pull it out of the services I access? I end up paying the service anyway, and probably more, since the service will be looking to be profitable, and the money usurped will be part of their overhead, and counted toward their base costs and toward my pricing. Please don't start with anything about the services utilizing my carrier's network, blah blah. *I* am utilizing my carrier's network to *choose* to access that service. That is ( part of ) *why* I paid for internet access to begin with. That service pays their own carrier for access to the internet. That should be an end of it. You should not get to double dip. It is pretty straight forward.
So, no, net neutrality does not drive up costs, the carriers drive up costs.
I indeed did not read your link. I did not disbelieve that your link showed what you claimed, though.
I do not believe that any increase in download speed had anything to do with NN repeal.
I do not believe that any of the capital intensive measures that would increase download speeds where
Decided by management
Budgeted
Approved to order
Ordered
Delivered
Installed and made operational
within the time frame. You could argue that the first three were pre-positioned, that those were handled in anticipation of passage. If you argue the others were handled in anticipation, then either
1, operations with NN in place are not as onerous ( profitability wise ) as carriers allege
2, the carriers had access to the information that indicates information flows that ought not happen.
At this time, my belief is that this is an accidental occurrence or one of the above.
Also, note, the 12th fastest to 6th fastest sounds large, the roughly 78 to about 82 ( perhaps approaching 4mbps ), trending down to 2.something versus 1.something from before. Before I go agreeing with "NN repeal caused that", I need something more.
And, finally, my personal view is that carriers should not be allow to extort ( I use that word deliberately ) additional money from customers by effectively being highway men. Their customers should be able to choose the products they use freely, not due to coercive measures like blocking and throttling to artificially make competing products look bad. Their products should win on merit, or not at all. Adam Smith turns in his grave. Since many carriers have made public statements that they intend to do exactly those things ( blocking, throttling, etc ), and have done exactly those things, and since there is no competition in this field due to infrastructural issues, legislation is required. If they need additional revenues to invest in their network, they have an avenue to do that. Charge the right amounts.
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed? What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes? Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when? Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal? NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and deployed sufficient equipment in 4 months to have made a difference ( and again, what is the difference? )?
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed? What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes? Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when? Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal? NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and deployed sufficient equipment in 4 months to have made a difference ( and again, what is the difference? )?
We "chose" by selecting representatives that elected to distribute funds from SS to general back when there was a surplus. We "chose" by selecting representatives that allowed the contributions cap to go into and continue in effect. We chose by being dumb, as a group.
I'm in San Diego, and my CC/University days where late 80's to early 90's. Mesa College and UCSD. I was adult, resident and low income ( Laffen's bike shop, Clairemont Bike Station, Hals Bike Center, then, finally a programming job ). There was no relief on the tuition front for me, or those around me. I had to work my way thru, so it took a while longer for me. Pete Wilson raising UC tuition just when I transferred to UCSD did not help things at all.
From all that I have heard/seen, tuition has not gotten better in CA, I'm glad your wife's brother can get an education, but in general, I am unaware of any other areas in CA where the post high school education is free.
On the loan front, my wife got a loan for a nursing program. She did get it. We are still paying it off. I'm making continual out-sized payments, it is going down, but if we had not married, she would be in a world of hurt.
I interpret his statement to mean that money should not influence political decision making. To me, that means contribution limits on individuals and corporations. The limits on individuals should be small, the limit on corporations should be zero, or less.
A corporation exists to make money. It spends money to enable making more money. Corporate money in the political process is to purchase legislation and other influence.
Slashdot Mirror
So very very very close.
You've got to know where to hold 'em ( Apple antenna)
Know when to fold 'em (samsung disaster phone)
Know when to walk away (Apple to Qualcom)
And know when to run ( intel 5G)
You never count your money ( Lyft stock price)
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done
One word. Just one word
"I interpreted "you" to mean "the people" as in "the citizens paying taxes.""
Fair enough, I can see that, but that is not what I was thinking then.
On psychopaths, yes, we need to watch all areas, govt and corp.
On regulations, this is why I believe that corporations should not be allowed to participate in politics, message or money wise.
And why I think that donation limits are a good idea.
Policy in a democracy should be set on the basis of what the whole electorate wants ( hopefully, they are smart/informed/invested enough ), not just what a few who wield some power want.
A, "Note also that when you voluntary give your money to a company to build the road..."
Where did the government come in? "You" and "company" were mentioned...
B, "Rand would never have had the government paying the corporations to build the road"
Rand would have the company do it with their own money, sure.
But, look at what corp execs do with networking infrastructure.
They dont serve certain areas, then they introduce laws to prevent those areas from handling the problem themselves.
They work very hard to make sure that they can bill both their direct client, and bill others for access to their direct client ( never mind they would not have a service to sell if it were not for those "others" ).
My point was that corporations are not the heroes very often.
If you give any entity, government or corporation, or person too much control and not enough oversight, you will be screwed.
Note, I do not believe there is anything wrong with earning a profit.
Even a large profit. Just dont be a psychopath about it.
You have not been paying attention.
When you give your money to a company to build the road, they will make sure they own the road.
You will pay for it, though the nose, because they have you over a barrel. But they will own it
And they will charge you extraordinary amounts of money to use it. You and everyone.
Sure, government needs to be watched ( so, why arent we watching ), but corporations need watching too.
The Randian notion that corporate execs are uniformly stalwart pillars of truth, justice and fairness does not seem to apply.
I wish like heck it did, but it dont.
9 by 4 by 1.
"And they're gigantic beneficiaries from the broadband ecosystem."
The ISPs only exist because there are companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc that make having an internet connection desirable.
Without them, there is no reason to pay an ISP. Who, really, is the "gigantic beneficiary" here?
If roads where private, would they tax stores? ( apparently, the answer is yes ).
It is a strangulation relation. It is extortion, not free trade.
I'd prefer that.
"You can easy remove apps using powershell and its easy to set it up for friends to use. I dont have mail, edge and other crap apps installed. You can easy disable Cortana and most of the telemetry."
A, you have to use powershell to remove apps? What the heck? MS has a system for removing apps, that *should* work just fine
they are using your machine to monetize you. And you want to defend that?
B, the telemetry *should not be in there*. It is slowing things down and invading my privacy. It should not be in need of disabling.
If they really wanted it for debugging and problem solving, they would write trace data to my disk, and require my active permission before disclosing it.
"I get the feel that people who complain about win10 either don't know what they are doing. Don't know how to problem solve or are just jumping on the anti Microsoft bandwagon to be internet popular. I'm 50 years old, have over 30 years in IT and running Win10 isnt that hard. Oh, I'm sure I'll get modded down cause truth hurts."
It is possible to dislike some subset of Microsoft's decisions without being "anti Microsoft", and it is possible, as in my case, to have started out liking Microsoft very much, and grown to dislike some of their actions and decisions ( I believe ) on the (de)merits of those actions and decisions. I'm 54 and have been involved with computers for over 40 years, including a long stint in IT both operationally and as a programmer. I understand there are those who hate Microsoft without reason. There are also those who love Microsoft without reason.
That is absolutely correct.
But we discuss many theories that seem to have a solid basis as proven as a short hand, until better data disproves and better theory replaces.
You believe in the market?
Yes? Then there is no "Job Creator". There are people who purchase products from people who make products. Those who make products would not make them ( and hence would not "create jobs" ) if it were not for those people purchasing products. All the "Job Creator" does is stand in the middle and collect.
Job creation is based on demand which is based on purchasing, which is based, by and large, on massive numbers of people.
Wrong post? No, I responded to exactly the post I meant to.
Rage? Maybe a bit. Just really tired of that same old argument. ...".
"The ISPs need the money, or
And to say that ISPs have a right to extract money from content providers is nothing but extortion.
The argument is simple. Pay me, or you wont reach your customers. The customers that paid you ( the ISP ) for access to the internet, not to ISP curated content. It is extortion.
If the ISPs need the money, they have customers who should be paying, directly, up front, nothing hidden.
Allowing the ISP to extort money from content providers will not prevent the consumer from paying a higher price.
The extortion will just ensure that the ISP's get to pick winners and losers. And winners will get to enforce their "winning"
And the ISP is not going to funnel that money into infrastructure in any case, it will go to profits.
Profits are great, by the way. Go earn them.
The content providers have to pay their own ISP, they already have an incentive to keep the number of bits low, they have to pay their ISP.
You are prevented from going to a non-subsidized providers.
There are few enough players now, a scheme such as yours will not increase that number.
No, the ISP is the interstate and the country roads.
The platforms are places ( libraries, store fronts, etc ) I might want to go to using the above.
ISPs are attempting to become modern "highway men" making their money on allowing me ( really, not allowing me, unless the library or store front pays them ) to visit.
With AT&T prez saying "Netflix gotta stop using my tubez*" and carriers all over throttling based on provider of service to extort, yes, it was bad and getting worse.
* unless they pay
"Proven wrong..."
Have they been proven wrong, or proven not to be perfect yet?
Physics in the late 1800's had enough on the ball to describe many things.
Relativity, Quantum theory, etc, refined things further, and now we understand more.
Is it perfect yet? No.
Does it describe things better than the older models? Yes.
My point? If the models are moving closer to correct descriptions, they are "wrong", but still useful.
Science is a process, not an arrival.
I would suggest that climate models may well be "wrong", but are better than they were, and more useful than they were.
They may not match your preferences, but there we are.
If you believe the hypothesis are incorrect, perhaps you can build some models and show how they describe reality better?
From the person with the sig "taxes are enforced exactations, not voluntary contributions..." come that link.
How can you read that and not see the underlying scheme is to force the bandwidth purchaser to make a choice of product based on extortion?
They artificially make competing products more expensive by essentially "taxing" the "foreign" product.
( an aside, you mention offering new services, you should know full well that these impounds make it harder for new services to start, yes? )
I purchase bandwidth to access products of my choosing. The goal of Network Neutrality is fully in support of that, so, while less regulation is better, there is a minimum that is required, and the carriers are proving that it is required by their statements and their actions.
Further, investment requires money from their customers. They have a natural and honest manner in which to gain that money.
They get to chose the pricing they place on their product. And in most cases, they face little or no competition.
So, why don't they charge their customers amounts commensurate with the level of investment they feel they need, in an aboveboard manner?
Why do they have to be underhanded and try to pull it out of the services I access?
I end up paying the service anyway, and probably more, since the service will be looking to be profitable, and the money usurped will be part of their overhead, and counted toward their base costs and toward my pricing.
Please don't start with anything about the services utilizing my carrier's network, blah blah.
*I* am utilizing my carrier's network to *choose* to access that service.
That is ( part of ) *why* I paid for internet access to begin with.
That service pays their own carrier for access to the internet. That should be an end of it.
You should not get to double dip. It is pretty straight forward.
So, no, net neutrality does not drive up costs, the carriers drive up costs.
They believed that they were paying for unmetered service.
They were being lied to, then extorted from.
I indeed did not read your link. I did not disbelieve that your link showed what you claimed, though.
I do not believe that any increase in download speed had anything to do with NN repeal.
I do not believe that any of the capital intensive measures that would increase download speeds where
Decided by management
Budgeted
Approved to order
Ordered
Delivered
Installed and made operational
within the time frame. You could argue that the first three were pre-positioned, that those were handled in anticipation of passage.
If you argue the others were handled in anticipation, then either
1, operations with NN in place are not as onerous ( profitability wise ) as carriers allege
2, the carriers had access to the information that indicates information flows that ought not happen.
At this time, my belief is that this is an accidental occurrence or one of the above.
Also, note, the 12th fastest to 6th fastest sounds large, the roughly 78 to about 82 ( perhaps approaching 4mbps ), trending down to 2.something versus 1.something from before. Before I go agreeing with "NN repeal caused that", I need something more.
And, finally, my personal view is that carriers should not be allow to extort ( I use that word deliberately ) additional money from customers by effectively being highway men. Their customers should be able to choose the products they use freely, not due to coercive measures like blocking and throttling to artificially make competing products look bad. Their products should win on merit, or not at all. Adam Smith turns in his grave.
Since many carriers have made public statements that they intend to do exactly those things ( blocking, throttling, etc ), and have done exactly those things, and since there is no competition in this field due to infrastructural issues, legislation is required. If they need additional revenues to invest in their network, they have an avenue to do that. Charge the right amounts.
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed?
What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes?
Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when?
Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal?
NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and deployed sufficient equipment in 4 months to have made a difference ( and again, what is the difference? )?
I call BS.
*How* could internet speeds have gone from 12th to 6th since NN was repealed?
What does it mean to have gone from 12th to 6th? Compared to what? What were the actual average speed changes?
Or was it just "creative mathematics"?
Are you saying that equipment was rolled out that upped speeds? Where, when?
Anecdotal, but my speeds have not changed appreciably.
And how is that tied to NN repeal?
NN's repeal could be argued as april to june of this year. Given the most favorable amount of time, carriers purchased and deployed sufficient equipment in 4 months to have made a difference ( and again, what is the difference? )?
We "chose" by selecting representatives that elected to distribute funds from SS to general back when there was a surplus. We "chose" by selecting representatives that allowed the contributions cap to go into and continue in effect.
We chose by being dumb, as a group.
I'm in San Diego, and my CC/University days where late 80's to early 90's. Mesa College and UCSD.
I was adult, resident and low income ( Laffen's bike shop, Clairemont Bike Station, Hals Bike Center, then, finally a programming job ).
There was no relief on the tuition front for me, or those around me.
I had to work my way thru, so it took a while longer for me.
Pete Wilson raising UC tuition just when I transferred to UCSD did not help things at all.
From all that I have heard/seen, tuition has not gotten better in CA, I'm glad your wife's brother can get an education, but in general, I am unaware of any other areas in CA where the post high school education is free.
On the loan front, my wife got a loan for a nursing program. She did get it. We are still paying it off.
I'm making continual out-sized payments, it is going down, but if we had not married, she would be in a world of hurt.
Assuming "CC" means community college, I'd like to know where.
Community college was not free for me Mesa College. ( San Diego ), nor was UCSD.
I interpret his statement to mean that money should not influence political decision making.
To me, that means contribution limits on individuals and corporations.
The limits on individuals should be small, the limit on corporations should be zero, or less.
A corporation exists to make money.
It spends money to enable making more money.
Corporate money in the political process is to purchase legislation and other influence.
That is what regulation is all too often used for, but that is not what it should be used for.