Where does the money come from when we give millions to Verizon? Taxpayers. Where does it go? Verizon executives and shareholders. Sure, they pay the people to run the lines, but as soon as they're done, most of those guys are out of a job, and the people end up paying exhorbitant rates to get measly broadband service, because that's the only way Verizon can make a profit.
If the government pays for it, the money stays in the community, because they pay workers to install the line (the expensive part), and they buy lunch at Sally's Diner. They buy grocerys at the market on the corner, they go drinking at the local bar. The money goes back into the community, not to some investor in a big city. And when people pay their bill, that money goes back into the system 100%, without having significant chunks of it given to an executive whose only job is to smoke cigars and tell the shareholders they just duped the poor folks in Bumblefuck out of $100 million, plus $50/month for 128K DSL service!
So should PennDOT close up shop and let private industry build the roads? Should PP&L let private companies build the power lines? Should each city have three or for competing sewer, water, and gas companies?
Hell. No. Infrastructure is what allows business to thrive, and the Internet is part of that infrastructure. If a community is dying, and the only way to save it is for the local government to create a fiber-to-the-home network, they should be able to. Why should a community sit back and wait for Verizon or Comcast or Service Electric or AT&T to decide they're worth saving?
And if you RTFB, you'll see that infrastructure is *part* of the things they're allowed to do. They specifically omit internet access from things the government is allowed to provide. Should the Information Superhighway be Private?
I understand that the initial deposit is funded by tax revenue, because there aren't any customers to provide funding. I don't have a problem with that because the infrastructure will create business, and improve the economy of the region.
But why can't the service run as break-even, funded by those who use it? The USPS is a government corporation. Sure, it's unfair to FedEx and UPS and DHL, but they run as a break-even corporation, which means it doesn't cost taxpayers a cent to not use the service.
If the state government legislated that all government-run ISPs operate at break-even, and that their capital cannot mingle with tax-payer dollars, then this is a non-issue.
You also mention that the local telecom providers lower rates once a community telecom comes in. You have to understand that the incumbent provider has spent millions and millions of dollars to provide service in the area.
What we're talking about isn't local phone service, or even long distance. Kutztown did not have *any* broadband because Comcast and Verizon said it was too expensive to provide them with broadband, and wouldn't move into the market. Rather than let the city sit back and slide into oblivion, they chose to take action and get broadband the only way they knew how; through the local government. The city is thriving now, with new companies moving into the area because of the cheap broadband.
Comcast and Verizon are whining now because they can't move into the area to get business because Kutztown is providing very high quality service that people like, and helping their community to survive. If Comcast and Verizon wouldn't move into the area before, they shouldn't be allowed to do so after the taxpayers have made the sacrifices to save their community.
Not only is this absolutely right, it's absolutely fine with me. Corporations should only be concerned with their profits. It's a good motivator. However, this means that the government and the people *MUST* regulate corporations in such a way that it is profitable to act in the interest of the public. A "carrot and stick" approach are needed with corporations.
If a corporation wishes to pollute, they can do so. But they must pay for the costs associated with their pollution; health and environmental degradation, and cleanup costs. If they did that, it would be more profitable to control their pollution.
If a corporation will not expand into a market, they should be offered money to do so. This will make it profitable for them to build the infrastructure that the communities need.
Unfortunately, our current laws allow too much corporate influence in government, and must be changed before this approach is more of a threat to the people and instead of to corporations.
My future father-in-law works for the Lt. Governor of PA. I'll be doing my best to raise this issue to him and have him talk with her about it, which will hopefully get this idiotic and corporate-centric bill defeated.
TelCos and Cable operators don't move into these communities because they can't make a profit on running the cable there because they would charge unreasonable rates. So when a community forms a group that doesn't have to worry about profits, the TelCos and cable companies get mad because they can't compete against someone who doesn't have to make a profit, or waste that profit giving money to shareholders and executives with multi-million-dollar salaries.
I fail to see how take home pay would be affected. Government run health care would eliminate the need to make a profit and eliminate the huge salaries of health care executives. Also, it spreads the risk amongst the largest number of people, which lowers premiums. Finally, adding it as a payroll tax means that employers would still be paying for it.
Cell phones started as compliments to a standard POTS service. Once they got 911, people started to use Cells as their only phone line.
Until VoIP has the reliability of POTS (it works when the power is out, as long as there's a connection), it won't be the main line for anyone.
See as how a POTS system with 911 is totally free (if you don't want any other service), I can see that most people will use VoIP but keep a POTS line only for 911. And maybe even have it hooked up to a non-electrified phone.
Notice how that was worded. "Would you mind." That's such a baited question. "No, I wouldn't mind" and "Yes, I would mind" can *both* be changed into "Your breasts are small and saggy, saddlebags." (I'm not saying anything about your wife's breasts, just how someone could interpret the question.)
Actually, I'm in PA. I heard a story about them on NPR. The sample playlists they gave sounded like they had hacked into my computer and stole my iTunes library, so I was intrigued. A true 'driveway moment.'
I give Apple one buck, and I can play a song on any device that supports the format an unlimited number of times, burn it to unlimited CDs (10X for the same playlist), and store it on five different computers, or stream it to unlimited computers on my network, or stream it to an Airport Express and play it on my home stereo, or listen to it on my iPod.
I don't know where people come up with the idea that Apple's DRM is in any way more restrictive than, say, a CD. Sure, it's not supported by *every* MP3 player out there, but that's because it's a loss-leader for the iPod. It's the opposite of the Gilette razor principle; sell the songs below cost, and make it up on the iPod. You *own* the song (as much as a song can be owned), you're not renting it.
If they try to make it more restrictive, I'll just burn a CD of all my purchased songs and re-rip them, and never give them another cent.
ClearChannel is already shaking because of a new radio format with disc jockeys who don't scream, who actually know about music, don't talk over songs, don't play songs on top of one another, play 5 minutes of commercials an hour, and have 2000+ song playlists.
He's talking about productivity increases. Productivity has skyrocketed in recent years, especially the last three. It seems people are willing to work more if they think they'll be fired.
I visited Denmark a few years back and was really impressed. Clean streets, happy, multi-lingual people. (I was able to carry on a conversation in English with a five-year-old!) And very, very low stress levels. People seemed to work when they wanted to, not because they had to.
If it weren't for the fact that Denmark will be underwater in 50 years due to the ice caps melting, I'd love to expatriate to there.
If your immediate skills are not valued then LEARN SOMETHING ELSE.
First, you need money to learn something in any way that an employer would like. It costs money to go to school. Yes, you could get loans, but then you need to pay them off.
Second, without experience, you're bloody unlikely to find a job, particularly in this market.
Unlike what most politicians say, retraining is *not* the key to personal prosperity.
Another thing an IT union could do, much like electrical, plumbing, and carpentry unions, is to make sure people in the industry have the right skills. My brother-in-law is a union carpenter, and he spent a year just cutting boards for 12 hours a day until they felt he was ready to get up on the scaffolding and swing a hammer while dangling over highway traffic.
I think an IT union would be able to make sure that kids coming out of school have skills that matter.
I concur. If I give my fiance my account information, and she deducts money from it like a criminal would (20 cents at a time), then ask for my money back because I was a "victim," that would be just as bad as if I were taking other people's money.
It was her fault. It was no different than if some guy in a suit walked up to her and asked for her ATM card and pin number because he was from "the bank." People need to understand this, or get off the Internet.
Suddenly, all the local manufacturers are out of business, laying off US workers. People start complaining about the off-shoring of jobs, but they still want goods at the lowest possible prices... because without a job, they can't afford the more expensive alternative.
However, we're at a disadvantage. We have 150 years of unionization and improved working and environmental conditions, not to mention a respect for human rights. If the Chinese had to respect their workers and their rights and their environment, products would be a lot more expensive.
If we're going to export jobs, we should also be exporting unions, and demanding that our trading partners respect the human rights of their workers. Which is worth more to us, freedom or money?
On average, everybody is better off, but part of that is that the people at the top off the food chain will be worse off than before.
Not people at the top; they're the ones who own the companies and get all the profits. The people who are worse of are the middle classes of first-world nations, particularly the lower-middle class who does all the factory work.
Slashdot Mirror
If the government pays for it, the money stays in the community, because they pay workers to install the line (the expensive part), and they buy lunch at Sally's Diner. They buy grocerys at the market on the corner, they go drinking at the local bar. The money goes back into the community, not to some investor in a big city. And when people pay their bill, that money goes back into the system 100%, without having significant chunks of it given to an executive whose only job is to smoke cigars and tell the shareholders they just duped the poor folks in Bumblefuck out of $100 million, plus $50/month for 128K DSL service!
Hell. No. Infrastructure is what allows business to thrive, and the Internet is part of that infrastructure. If a community is dying, and the only way to save it is for the local government to create a fiber-to-the-home network, they should be able to. Why should a community sit back and wait for Verizon or Comcast or Service Electric or AT&T to decide they're worth saving?
And if you RTFB, you'll see that infrastructure is *part* of the things they're allowed to do. They specifically omit internet access from things the government is allowed to provide. Should the Information Superhighway be Private?
But why can't the service run as break-even, funded by those who use it? The USPS is a government corporation. Sure, it's unfair to FedEx and UPS and DHL, but they run as a break-even corporation, which means it doesn't cost taxpayers a cent to not use the service.
If the state government legislated that all government-run ISPs operate at break-even, and that their capital cannot mingle with tax-payer dollars, then this is a non-issue.
You also mention that the local telecom providers lower rates once a community telecom comes in. You have to understand that the incumbent provider has spent millions and millions of dollars to provide service in the area.
What we're talking about isn't local phone service, or even long distance. Kutztown did not have *any* broadband because Comcast and Verizon said it was too expensive to provide them with broadband, and wouldn't move into the market. Rather than let the city sit back and slide into oblivion, they chose to take action and get broadband the only way they knew how; through the local government. The city is thriving now, with new companies moving into the area because of the cheap broadband.
Comcast and Verizon are whining now because they can't move into the area to get business because Kutztown is providing very high quality service that people like, and helping their community to survive. If Comcast and Verizon wouldn't move into the area before, they shouldn't be allowed to do so after the taxpayers have made the sacrifices to save their community.
If a corporation wishes to pollute, they can do so. But they must pay for the costs associated with their pollution; health and environmental degradation, and cleanup costs. If they did that, it would be more profitable to control their pollution.
If a corporation will not expand into a market, they should be offered money to do so. This will make it profitable for them to build the infrastructure that the communities need.
Unfortunately, our current laws allow too much corporate influence in government, and must be changed before this approach is more of a threat to the people and instead of to corporations.
Step #1: REMOVE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
My future father-in-law works for the Lt. Governor of PA. I'll be doing my best to raise this issue to him and have him talk with her about it, which will hopefully get this idiotic and corporate-centric bill defeated.
TelCos and Cable operators don't move into these communities because they can't make a profit on running the cable there because they would charge unreasonable rates. So when a community forms a group that doesn't have to worry about profits, the TelCos and cable companies get mad because they can't compete against someone who doesn't have to make a profit, or waste that profit giving money to shareholders and executives with multi-million-dollar salaries.
I fail to see how take home pay would be affected. Government run health care would eliminate the need to make a profit and eliminate the huge salaries of health care executives. Also, it spreads the risk amongst the largest number of people, which lowers premiums. Finally, adding it as a payroll tax means that employers would still be paying for it.
Until VoIP has the reliability of POTS (it works when the power is out, as long as there's a connection), it won't be the main line for anyone.
See as how a POTS system with 911 is totally free (if you don't want any other service), I can see that most people will use VoIP but keep a POTS line only for 911. And maybe even have it hooked up to a non-electrified phone.
how about $9/month for 3GB of storage?
You made the right call.
Angelina Jolie can swash my buckle any day.
Only if you're in the market for a P-40.
Actually, I'm in PA. I heard a story about them on NPR. The sample playlists they gave sounded like they had hacked into my computer and stole my iTunes library, so I was intrigued. A true 'driveway moment.'
I don't know where people come up with the idea that Apple's DRM is in any way more restrictive than, say, a CD. Sure, it's not supported by *every* MP3 player out there, but that's because it's a loss-leader for the iPod. It's the opposite of the Gilette razor principle; sell the songs below cost, and make it up on the iPod. You *own* the song (as much as a song can be owned), you're not renting it.
If they try to make it more restrictive, I'll just burn a CD of all my purchased songs and re-rip them, and never give them another cent.
ClearChannel is already shaking because of a new radio format with disc jockeys who don't scream, who actually know about music, don't talk over songs, don't play songs on top of one another, play 5 minutes of commercials an hour, and have 2000+ song playlists.
Does he mean goatse.cx? What documentation has he been looking at?!?
He's talking about productivity increases. Productivity has skyrocketed in recent years, especially the last three. It seems people are willing to work more if they think they'll be fired.
If it weren't for the fact that Denmark will be underwater in 50 years due to the ice caps melting, I'd love to expatriate to there.
First, you need money to learn something in any way that an employer would like. It costs money to go to school. Yes, you could get loans, but then you need to pay them off.
Second, without experience, you're bloody unlikely to find a job, particularly in this market.
Unlike what most politicians say, retraining is *not* the key to personal prosperity.
I think an IT union would be able to make sure that kids coming out of school have skills that matter.
And now my wife wants me to sell my Powerbook to pay for it!
I really could have used this in Algebra class!
I concur. If I give my fiance my account information, and she deducts money from it like a criminal would (20 cents at a time), then ask for my money back because I was a "victim," that would be just as bad as if I were taking other people's money.
It was her fault. It was no different than if some guy in a suit walked up to her and asked for her ATM card and pin number because he was from "the bank." People need to understand this, or get off the Internet.
However, we're at a disadvantage. We have 150 years of unionization and improved working and environmental conditions, not to mention a respect for human rights. If the Chinese had to respect their workers and their rights and their environment, products would be a lot more expensive.
If we're going to export jobs, we should also be exporting unions, and demanding that our trading partners respect the human rights of their workers. Which is worth more to us, freedom or money?
On average, everybody is better off, but part of that is that the people at the top off the food chain will be worse off than before.
Not people at the top; they're the ones who own the companies and get all the profits. The people who are worse of are the middle classes of first-world nations, particularly the lower-middle class who does all the factory work.
News for nerds is as much about news as it is about wasting time at work.