But this is easily remedied by revoking the lease. Precedent is already set for that. Its already happened in several cases.
Alaska cited these instances when they revoked oil and gas leases because big oil was sitting on the drilling rights without producing anything. They pulled back the lease and re-issued them.
The article says the price per watt went to 98 cents. But it didn't mention anything about the watt density.
Without knowing this, you really can't assume you can get 5KW on a typical house roof.
Don't get me wrong, I think its a good idea, along as rack systems and electronics were as standardized as everything else that goes into house construction. That has not yet really happened and many systems the DIY crowd is bolting onto their roofs are systems for which parts will not be available in 3 to 5 years.
Most systems today are not designed to feed back into the Electrical grid. Most are designed for simple isolation. Feeding back into the grid means that the utilities should pay the home owner, but don't expect the power companies to pay going rates for this if this becomes common. They will want to charge you 10 cents and pay you 4 cents.
Well it is getting to be a DIY field, with controllers and isolators being available off the shelf as well as hundreds of how-to sites springing up all over the web concerning wind, micro-hydro and solar augmentation.
But its no surprise that installation costs more than the pieces, that's sort of true about just about anything other than plug-it-in-turn-it-on appliances.
Still there is no reason to assume that the basic modules coming out of FirstSolar's plant are anywhere near ready for Joe Sixpack, and TFA is pretty vague.
The real problem is one of durability and upgrade-ability. The payout period for materials and installation of off the shelf kits to date exceeds the life expectancy of the parts, making this sort of thing only suitable for areas where there are no grid alternatives.
Yes, profit pays grants, provides FAR greater incentive to innovate, provides for public safety (by making safe products) provides transportation, (again at a profit), provides for the education of its workers, and curtails obscene profits (or loses its customers to others). All this while producing what people want at a price they are willing to pay, and at the same time paying taxes so fat cats in government can feather their own nest and rip off the first derivative of the economic system.
What one species does to survive in any particular environment has absolutely nothing to do with that species taking on the task of managing evolution for a frog in central america.
We can live in the arctic, and even on the moon. But we can not micromanage evolution for every species on earth EVEN IF we might have impacted them in the past.
Now go away with this stupid argument about the arctic and what mankind does to survive.
> Currently carriers pay a one-time fee for a bit of spectrum and get it for life, that isn't in the public interest.
Its an asset. They can't make money on it unless they put it to use.
If they had any unused spectrum your argument would make more sense.
Its in the public interest to use our (Yes, OUR) radio spectrum. Allocating it to companies who will put it to the use that WE WANT, is in our interests. Turning around and taxing them on their "use" is just so much self flagellation. Tax their profits and let it go at that.
Space for Freeways is scarce. We need Freeways Government allocates space for freeways. (Buying it if necessary). Private contractors build Freeways. States maintain them. Should we tax these contractors and States every year for the land allocated to roads?
When ALL carriers pass on these taxes, where are customers going to go to avoid them?
Why drop Sprint when ATT will charge you the same?
Further, there is no reason to believe they charge "so as to result in the maximum profit." There is a strong tendency in any business NOT to test LOWER rates, if you are comfortable with the profit you get now.
The best that can be said is that they don't RAISE their rate much ahead of the competition.
Thus, rates ratchet up. This is also why all carriers are within a few pennies of each other when you compare equivalent plans.
But when the feds tack on new taxes and fees, soon all carriers will ratchet up again.
The lower frequencies still provide plenty of bandwidth for the task at hand, and even better building penetration than the cell frequencies.
The real problem of the imaginary shortage is the obsolete method of allocation for point to point radio with ever little agency of government using discrete frequencies. The NET effect over all such frequencies is that the entire chunk of the spectrum is idle 99.999 percent of the time. Its way worse than 11% you quote.
If this traffic were packetized, spred-spectrumized, time-divided, code-divided, etc, like cell traffic, you could serve an every agency in an entire state with the same bandwidth reserved for a small town sheriff's office. You touch on this later in your post, but you still fall prey to the shortage fallacy.
If the 20 billion were fed back into re-equipping radio coms for every street sweeper, fire truck, and utility agency in 3 years we would have an excess of bandwidth an frequency space sufficient for 100 years of growth. But it won't be, it will be swept into some welfare pot to buy condoms for crack addicts or something.
> In an efficient business, service would be almost free after 12 months.
Perhaps in something like water or sewer where nothing changes.
But would you be happy with the cell phone service and coverage you had in the past? We demand new technology, better connections, faster data, unlimited calling, etc, etc, etc.
It seems the industry is in a constant state of rolling out new services.
> Critics say the carriers will simply pass these fees through to consumers."
Not only critics say that, anyone who has ever run a business will tell you that ALL costs are passed on to the customers in one way or another.
The only difference here, is that the carriers may be able to write these fees off of their taxes, which is just that much less tax revenue, making the government's share zilch.
It is still unproven that researchers were the (only) carriers. Frog eating birds may have spread the fungus as well. It's spread was probably inevitable.
Its also unproven the the "wilderness" needs saving. After all, the next cure for cancer could just as likely be lurking in the species the frogs are suppressing with their voracious appetites, or the species that steps up to fill the frog's niche.
"Won't somebody please think of the cancer patients!"
Slashdot Mirror
So, long story short:
Sarah does what Barack just dreams.
But this is easily remedied by revoking the lease.
Precedent is already set for that. Its already happened in several cases.
Alaska cited these instances when they revoked oil and gas leases because big oil was
sitting on the drilling rights without producing anything. They pulled back the lease
and re-issued them.
The article says the price per watt went to 98 cents. But it didn't mention anything about the watt density.
Without knowing this, you really can't assume you can get 5KW on a typical house roof.
Don't get me wrong, I think its a good idea, along as rack systems and electronics were as standardized as everything else that goes into house construction. That has not yet really happened and many systems the DIY crowd is bolting onto their roofs are systems for which parts will not be available in 3 to 5 years.
Most systems today are not designed to feed back into the Electrical grid. Most are designed for simple isolation.
Feeding back into the grid means that the utilities should pay the home owner, but don't expect the power companies to pay going rates for this if this becomes common. They will want to charge you 10 cents and pay you 4 cents.
Crime Scene Investigators involved even before you start work?
Well it is getting to be a DIY field, with controllers and isolators being available off the shelf as well as hundreds of how-to sites springing up all over the web concerning wind, micro-hydro and solar augmentation.
But its no surprise that installation costs more than the pieces, that's sort of true about just about anything other than plug-it-in-turn-it-on appliances.
Still there is no reason to assume that the basic modules coming out of FirstSolar's plant are anywhere near ready for Joe Sixpack, and TFA is pretty vague.
The real problem is one of durability and upgrade-ability. The payout period for materials and installation of off the shelf kits to date exceeds the life expectancy of the parts, making this sort of thing only suitable for areas where there are no grid alternatives.
> we are causing global warming,
You just shot down your entire argument right there.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1ad63198-0a1f-4b5b-8fb8-96df07d70d41
I pay 99 cents for downloading songs.
What's your problem?
Oh, yes, a black out will work... That scares the hell out of them.
Yes, ridiculous. Way beyond what one song would be worth.
By the time you buy a song from iTunes, do you seriously believe
the artist got anywhere near a Euro?
Yes, profit pays grants, provides FAR greater incentive to innovate, provides for public safety (by making safe products) provides transportation, (again at a profit), provides for the education of its workers, and curtails obscene profits (or loses its customers to others). All this while producing what people want at a price they are willing to pay, and at the same time paying taxes so fat cats in government can feather their own nest and rip off the first derivative of the economic system.
Yes, Profit does all of that, and then some.
Nanny state much?
Why should we tax ourselves for the privileged of using our own bandwidth?
How is any of this germane?
What one species does to survive in any particular environment has absolutely nothing to do with that species taking on the task of managing evolution for a frog in central america.
We can live in the arctic, and even on the moon.
But we can not micromanage evolution for every species on earth EVEN IF we might have impacted them in the past.
Now go away with this stupid argument about the arctic and what mankind does to survive.
> Well you can't have it both ways.
Can't have WHAT both ways?
Its true that the system of capitalism allows for a profit.
Its true that all taxes are paid by the customers.
Those two facts are in no way in disagreement, and not at odds with one another.
Its perfectly rational to allow a profit and oppose a tax.
The profit pays pack loans, funds development (GSM, 3G, 4G, 5G), buys groceries, yachts, hires maids, and pays taxes.
Does the tax do any of that?
> Currently carriers pay a one-time fee for a bit of spectrum and get it for life, that isn't in the public interest.
Its an asset. They can't make money on it unless they put it to use.
If they had any unused spectrum your argument would make more sense.
Its in the public interest to use our (Yes, OUR) radio spectrum. Allocating it to companies who will put it to the use that WE WANT, is in our interests. Turning around and taxing them on their "use" is just so much self flagellation. Tax their profits and let it go at that.
Space for Freeways is scarce.
We need Freeways
Government allocates space for freeways. (Buying it if necessary).
Private contractors build Freeways.
States maintain them.
Should we tax these contractors and States every year for the land allocated to roads?
Oh, leave him alone.
He needs to prove to himself that you can Tax your way out of a depression.
When is shining dream lies shattered in the dust in four years he will be a right winger too.
When ALL carriers pass on these taxes, where are customers going to go to avoid them?
Why drop Sprint when ATT will charge you the same?
Further, there is no reason to believe they charge "so as to result in the maximum profit."
There is a strong tendency in any business NOT to test LOWER rates, if you are comfortable
with the profit you get now.
The best that can be said is that they don't RAISE their rate much ahead of the competition.
Thus, rates ratchet up. This is also why all carriers are
within a few pennies of each other when you compare equivalent plans.
But when the feds tack on new taxes and fees, soon all carriers will ratchet up again.
The shortage you perceive is fiction.
The lower frequencies still provide plenty of bandwidth for the task at hand, and even better building penetration than the cell frequencies.
The real problem of the imaginary shortage is the obsolete method of allocation for point to point radio with ever little agency of government using discrete frequencies. The NET effect over all such frequencies is that the entire chunk of the spectrum is idle 99.999 percent of the time. Its way worse than 11% you quote.
If this traffic were packetized, spred-spectrumized, time-divided, code-divided, etc, like cell traffic, you could serve an every agency in an entire state with the same bandwidth reserved for a small town sheriff's office. You touch on this later in your post, but you still fall prey to the shortage fallacy.
If the 20 billion were fed back into re-equipping radio coms for every street sweeper, fire truck, and utility agency in 3 years we would have an excess of bandwidth an frequency space sufficient for 100 years of growth. But it won't be, it will be swept into some welfare pot to buy condoms for crack addicts or something.
> Carriers cannot pass on ad valorem taxes like this
On what do you base that?
They pass on the cost of their own regulation, you can be sure they will pass this tax on to their customers.
> In an efficient business, service would be almost free after 12 months.
Perhaps in something like water or sewer where nothing changes.
But would you be happy with the cell phone service and coverage you had in the past? We demand new technology, better connections, faster data, unlimited calling, etc, etc, etc.
It seems the industry is in a constant state of rolling out new services.
> Critics say the carriers will simply pass these fees through to consumers."
Not only critics say that, anyone who has ever run a business will tell you that ALL costs are passed on to the customers in one way or another.
The only difference here, is that the carriers may be able to write these fees off of their taxes,
which is just that much less tax revenue, making the government's share zilch.
> The point is, it is not inhabitable (for humans) without technological interventions.
Go tell your nonsense to the Eskimo populations.
What the hell are you raving about?
The north has been inhabitable since before the last ice age.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
It is still unproven that researchers were the (only) carriers. Frog eating birds may have spread the fungus as well. It's spread was probably inevitable.
Its also unproven the the "wilderness" needs saving. After all, the next cure for cancer could just as likely be lurking in the species the frogs are suppressing with their voracious appetites, or the species that steps up to fill the frog's niche.
"Won't somebody please think of the cancer patients!"
> One reason which has been put forward is that frog researchers who go from country to country are spreading diseases.
If so, funding more frog researchers seems hardly wise.
> Im sure that the frogs will adapt to the environment and overcome.
And if they don't, something else will.
No tasty bug goes un-eaten for long.
Nature abhors a vacuum.