The consumers do pay and should pay for what they get.
The silicon valley companies pay for their internet access.
The telcos and ISPs have peering or pay relationships with each other ( peering being "you carry my traffic the rest of the way, and I'll carry yours", a quid pro quo analogous to paying. ).
What the telcos want is to upgrade infrstructure to allow them to provide more services. No problem so far. Its how they want that upgrade paid for that is the problem. How? The busineses that are making money from their presence on the internet. They have it in their power to increase the rates they charge these businesses. The ISPs have the ability to increase the rates they charge consumers. Both have the ability to raise money in other ways. Why should large content providers pay for these changes? If telcos want the infrastructure, they should pay for it, then profit from it. If they cant afford it, they have to do without it. Anything else is less free market than we already have.
If you want to do something critical, there are many many different communication line options available to you. The internet was not and is not suitable for critical stuff.
The infrastructure is there. It is not the internet.
Also, why should large content providers have to pay for all this? They have sufficent where things are now. I dont feel bad for them, but taking money from them to fund these changes ( which will benefit mostly the telco's ) is not fair. If consumers are beating down the doors to get this, then they ( me ) can pay for it. If the telcos are benefiting, then let them pay for it. Little thing called investing in your core business. If they cant do that, then offer stock against it.
Also, note the inefficency. If yahoo (for instance ) has to pay for this "access", it *will* get passed on to the end user. And they will want to make a profit on that "investment", and they will be right to expect it. So, if it costs n billion to fund the infrastructure upgrades, then the total cost borne by the end customer will be that plus some sliver of profit to the content providers.
Why should large content providers be responsible to provide infrastructure to allow telcos to ship stuff to consumers?
If the telco's business model is defective, or if there is not enough money in that business, then that is "tough shit". Otherwise, they need to raise rates on the right people to afford this.
And this goes against free market principals. Anytime you have a third party paying the bills, any incentive to bring down costs to increase efficiency is gone.
My point was that car drivers need to pay attention, yes.
Lights can help that. Unfortunately, it needs to be something distracting. I think a shoulder holster with a large gun in it would help more. With some reflective tape on it, so it is obvious it is a gun.
Course, maybe there are people who have licenses and shouldnt.
There is a goodly number of cardrivers that just dont see cyclists unless you have an extraordinary amount of light coming off of you. Broad daylight and I have been run off the road by some people.
Just dont get me started about the woman in the van who took the time to tell me that I should not ride at night, because her husband was legally blind, and could not see me.
However, I cant help but think that Iran knows very well why parts of the rest of the world would not be comfortable with them having the ability to make nuclear bombs. That is what was behind the attempt at having the material refinement done out of Iran, then they could have their power generation without the threat of bombs being a possible byproduct.
So, why wasnt this acceptable? I dont know. Were I in that situation, I would be sensitive to the idea of being jerked around on the price/availability of the refined material. A simple treaty or 12 to enforce reasonable pricing for a very long time, in my opinion, anyway, could have been worked out. And the Iranians would still have the ability to say "hey, any issues with the flow of materials, we start our own processes going".
I can only, with what I know thus far, conclude that Iran's goals were not served by such a compromise. I believe they did not feel well served because they did intend to make some clandestine weapons.
I am of the opinion that North Korea is relatively safe due to their proximity to China, not because they have or claim to have Nuclear weapons. There was a time in the not too distant past when they did not have Nuclear weapons, and we did not attack. I will grant you that there are some that may believe that it is the nukes that make the difference.
I have not seen a 1970's Oldsmobile today. Been inside the whole time.
I agree with you, in the main.
Where we part is on the older US cars. They were simply made, but robustly made. I think that the number of cars from the 60's and early 70's on the road 30 years later was higher than the number of 90's cars will be 30 years later. I dont expect much difference between the US and foreign made cars.
I am a Christian myself. That section in Genesis is sure easy to miss, but I see it now, thanks.
Israel may well have title to Israel (:-) ), but I dont know how important that is. He called them out, sent them here and there, and He put them back. They can be with God whereever they are physically, so...
It's funny, we were reminded of Gideon during the sermon this Sunday. How he left with huge numbers, and God wanted to emphasize that it was his victory, not Gideon's, so he told Gideon to go forward with 300.
Is to show how two rounds of the Caeser Shift Is exactly equivilent to 1 round of the same, with a different key, and no harder to crack. In fact, if your key is the same length as your alphabet, it would be the plaintext again.
But then you would need a lawyer to write that document, and then you would need to have that lawyer on staff to make sure it was enforced, and that new lawyer would probably ask the lawyer that was the target of this action to write it for him as a professional courtesy, that would that document mean then?
Then certainly her lovely departing gifts will be dependant on her silence on the matter, and she's going to take the flak for it anyway.
Quite. But is it deserved, or not? Maybe so, my question was just a "what if".
You can't actually expect a C-level exec to turn down a big honking bag of money and get another job, just to save something piddly like thier integrity, can you?
Actually, I can. Course, I dont expect it, if you catch the difference. I think part of the problem we in the US are having is that our expectation levels are so terribly low.
Well, then all they need to do is wait on the Lord to drive the Canaanites et al out of their land. They cannot do it on their own strength.
And yes, John 18:36 was Jesus. I suppose it depends on which way you look at things. If you are looking at it from the world's perspective, then title to the land being given from the Lord make no difference. If from the Christian viewpoint, then I would expect his word to have a lot of bearing. I am going to guess that you are looking at this from the viewpoint of a person of Judaistic faith who believes that Jesus was not the Christ.
FYI, I find nothing in Genesis talking about Israel. I have read it in the past, and I skimmed it today. The conquering of the land the Lord had apportioned them is written out in Exodus and Joshua.
Slashdot Mirror
The consumers do pay and should pay for what they get.
The silicon valley companies pay for their internet access.
The telcos and ISPs have peering or pay relationships
with each other ( peering being "you carry my traffic
the rest of the way, and I'll carry yours", a quid
pro quo analogous to paying. ).
What the telcos want is to upgrade infrstructure to allow
them to provide more services. No problem so far. Its
how they want that upgrade paid for that is the problem.
How? The busineses that are making money from their
presence on the internet. They have it in their power
to increase the rates they charge these businesses.
The ISPs have the ability to increase the rates they
charge consumers. Both have the ability to raise money
in other ways. Why should large content providers
pay for these changes? If telcos want the infrastructure,
they should pay for it, then profit from it. If they cant
afford it, they have to do without it. Anything else is
less free market than we already have.
If you want to do something critical, there are many many
different communication line options available to you.
The internet was not and is not suitable for critical
stuff.
The infrastructure is there. It is not the internet.
Also, why should large content providers have to pay for
all this? They have sufficent where things are now. I
dont feel bad for them, but taking money from them to
fund these changes ( which will benefit mostly the
telco's ) is not fair. If consumers are beating down
the doors to get this, then they ( me ) can pay for it.
If the telcos are benefiting, then let them pay for it.
Little thing called investing in your core business.
If they cant do that, then offer stock against it.
Also, note the inefficency. If yahoo (for instance ) has to pay for
this "access", it *will* get passed on to the end user.
And they will want to make a profit on that "investment",
and they will be right to expect it. So, if it costs
n billion to fund the infrastructure upgrades, then the
total cost borne by the end customer will be that plus
some sliver of profit to the content providers.
Why should large content providers be responsible
to provide infrastructure to allow telcos to ship
stuff to consumers?
If the telco's business model is defective, or if
there is not enough money in that business, then
that is "tough shit". Otherwise, they need to
raise rates on the right people to afford this.
And this goes against free market principals.
Anytime you have a third party paying the bills,
any incentive to bring down costs to increase
efficiency is gone.
Why should Google, et al, be responsible for
paying (twice) to enable telcos to ship IPTV down their
"pipes"?
The beneficiary is the telcos and the consumers.
They should pay. If they wont, too bad.
I put mine on my USB drive.
Dont let them tell you you cant take it with you.
Actually, they are encrypted. Play them backwards to get the "plaintext".
Pretty subtle, eh?
My point was that car drivers need to pay attention, yes.
Lights can help that. Unfortunately, it needs to be something
distracting. I think a shoulder holster with a large gun in it
would help more. With some reflective tape on it, so it is
obvious it is a gun.
Course, maybe there are people who have licenses and shouldnt.
Darned if you do, darned if you dont.
There is a goodly number of cardrivers that just
dont see cyclists unless you have an extraordinary
amount of light coming off of you. Broad daylight
and I have been run off the road by some people.
Just dont get me started about the woman in the van
who took the time to tell me that I should not ride
at night, because her husband was legally blind, and
could not see me.
You make some good points.
However, I cant help but think that Iran knows very well
why parts of the rest of the world would not be comfortable
with them having the ability to make nuclear bombs. That
is what was behind the attempt at having the material
refinement done out of Iran, then they could have their
power generation without the threat of bombs being a possible
byproduct.
So, why wasnt this acceptable? I dont know. Were I in that
situation, I would be sensitive to the idea of being jerked
around on the price/availability of the refined material. A simple
treaty or 12 to enforce reasonable pricing for a very long
time, in my opinion, anyway, could have been worked out.
And the Iranians would still have the ability to say
"hey, any issues with the flow of materials, we start our
own processes going".
I can only, with what I know thus far, conclude that Iran's goals
were not served by such a compromise. I believe they did not
feel well served because they did intend to make some
clandestine weapons.
I am of the opinion that North Korea is relatively safe
due to their proximity to China, not because they have
or claim to have Nuclear weapons. There was a time in
the not too distant past when they did not have Nuclear
weapons, and we did not attack. I will grant you that
there are some that may believe that it is the nukes
that make the difference.
Wow, I cant believe I missed that. :-)
That's discriminatory!
If you network two together, would that be a "wee-wee"?
What was the previous definition?
I have not seen a 1970's Oldsmobile today. Been
inside the whole time.
I agree with you, in the main.
Where we part is on the older US cars. They were simply
made, but robustly made. I think that the number of
cars from the 60's and early 70's on the road 30 years
later was higher than the number of 90's cars will be
30 years later. I dont expect much difference between
the US and foreign made cars.
I'll cover the rest.
"doing things with same things".
"doing something with something"
"doing something with some other thing"
"doing nothing with something"
"doing nothing with nothing".
Did I miss anything?
Ah, I see.
:-)
Funny, looking at the Bible as a receipt.
Email my lawyers at
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe,
They are authorized to negotiate terms.
So, find a couple clients that both want that NDA executed.
Execute with both of them.
Do some work, foment a crisis, get them both
hammering on each other, stand aside a watch
the fireworks.
I have a patent on this, by the way.
I am a Christian myself. That section in
:-) ),
Genesis is sure easy to miss, but I see it
now, thanks.
Israel may well have title to Israel (
but I dont know how important that is. He
called them out, sent them here and there, and
He put them back. They can be with God
whereever they are physically, so...
It's funny, we were reminded of Gideon during
the sermon this Sunday. How he left with huge
numbers, and God wanted to emphasize that it
was his victory, not Gideon's, so he told Gideon
to go forward with 300.
Is to show how two rounds of the Caeser Shift
Is exactly equivilent to 1 round of the same, with a different key,
and no harder to crack. In fact, if your key is the same length as
your alphabet, it would be the plaintext again.
But then you would need a lawyer to write that document,
and then you would need to have that lawyer on staff to
make sure it was enforced, and that new lawyer would probably
ask the lawyer that was the target of this action to write
it for him as a professional courtesy, that would that
document mean then?
Quite. But is it deserved, or not? Maybe
so, my question was just a "what if".
Actually, I can. Course, I dont expect it, if you catch the difference.
I think part of the problem we in the US are having is that our
expectation levels are so terribly low.
I dont know Jack about this, but,
In fine slashdot tradition, I proceed.
What if she knew about this, and had been fighting
tooth and nail to keep it from happening? What if
she quit over them overriding her on this?
Not saying she did, but what if?
Well, then all they need to do is wait on the Lord
:-)
to drive the Canaanites et al out of their land.
They cannot do it on their own strength.
And yes, John 18:36 was Jesus. I suppose it depends
on which way you look at things. If you are looking
at it from the world's perspective, then title to the
land being given from the Lord make no difference. If
from the Christian viewpoint, then I would expect his
word to have a lot of bearing. I am going to guess
that you are looking at this from the viewpoint of
a person of Judaistic faith who believes that Jesus
was not the Christ.
FYI, I find nothing in Genesis talking about Israel.
I have read it in the past, and I skimmed it today.
The conquering of the land the Lord had apportioned them
is written out in Exodus and Joshua.
As to "title", can they produce that document?