However, according to the cult of the market, the "Invisible Hand" is supposed to push the retail cost down to the cost of production.
That tells us that the telecoms market is quite unhealthy in the U.S. OR that the theory of markets is wrong.
There is no free market when there is government interference in said markets. And there is most definitely government interference in these markets.
The problem has been around for as long as phones could actually use data and shows no signs of correction. If the market can't correct any faster than that, it's worthless.
You're right, it's been around as long as phones have been and the problems will continue until the government stops interfering. Yes, interfering. First government gave monopolies to land-line companies like ATT and to mass media broadcasters like Fox and Clear Channel. I know, I know, Fox and Clear Channel are relatively new at broadcasting.
save yourself some money and get a Dell S2309W if you can sacrifice the 1" difference.
Why? The Dell has a Twisted nematic (TN) panel, about the worse type you can get. I'm going to be editing photos which should be done on at least an IPS panel though E-IPS and P-IPS panels are better.
I have been hit several times by massive data bills, and however easy you think it would be to avoid, it is not.
Did I say it was easy to avoid?
It almost makes me want to push the other way on net neutrality. Let them make all the rules they want, just offer me good service at a reasonable (even if rather high) cost.
Broadband access and net neutrality would be a non-issue if there were a free market, but there isn't. Land-line vendors have a veritable lock-in with easements and use of the airwaves requires licenses, another lock-in, or the same easements land-line providers use.
And Verizon just sold all that FiOS, DSL and landline business to Frontier.
Really? At least article says Verizon didn't sell its service everywhere, such as Virginia. Another one says it sold "its rural assets in 14 states to Frontier Communications (NYSE: FTR) last year."
Even if you really believe you will get competition in a market with a 10 figure barrier to entry, the spectrum is scarce
That's what they say but the airwaves aren't as scarce as they're made out to be. Of course it's to the incumbents' favor that scarcity is the perception.
The problem with the telecoms is similar to those of the even more transparently criminal "privatized electric utilities" - who can only fail to profit if they somehow manage to build more capacity and alleviate the shortage of their commodity.
Quite the contrary, most power suppliers in the US are limited to what the states' Public Utility Commission allows them to charge.
various funny attempts at market-oriented reform from the 90's.
What attempts at reform? The only one I'm aware of is California's re-regulation. Yes, re-regulation, while the state got rid of some regulations it introduced others. For instance the state separated the generation of electricity from the distribution of that electricity. The same company could not own the generators and the power lines. Then while the distributors were barred from raising the rates they charged end users for the electricity, the state allowed the generators to raise their own prices. Somewhere or another I found an economic study showing how bad CA's new regulatory regime was but I lost it.
Even my near-first-gen netbook has a larger resolution screen than a DVD...
But even if you use the netbook to watch video, many others will not. For me as well as others, the bigger the display the better. Though I have watched videos on my laptop's LCD I much prefer plugging in my 21" external monitor. I am also looking to get a bigger monitor, at least 24" like the HP LP2475w.
See, I made sure to be smart and when I planned on using data, I went with a network that allowed for unlimited.
And there have always been unlimited data plans. NOT!!! I still recall the first mobile phones I saw, they were brick sized and 1 minute of use cost a lot, there were no unlimited plans.
You aren't going to hit 5 whole GB just by browsing the web.
But I can hit it by taking 200 photographs and uploading them to my server.
Of course I'd pay more for that capability, but I bet in less developed nations it will be cheaper when it is available. The US is a leader in technology, for now, but the prices for that technology is high. That's because there is no free market. With monopolies providers can demand whatever they want. And while other nations don't have much in the way of free markets either, they're more interested in getting technology into as many people's hands as they can instead of wringing out the most money from each person's hand.
Maybe because it's tethered and being viewed with a laptop?
I'm typing this on a 17" laptop and I don't know if there will be much difference between watching a standard and an HD video on it. Sure, there would be a difference if it were being edited, but then again if so then a larger external monitor, one that can be calibrated with high fidelity, should be used instead. I got a 17" laptop specifically to have a larger display for outdoor photography, but I would not use its monitor to do much editing.
I bet it doesn't even stop the download when you exceed the limit. It just goes on to charge per megabyte or something.
I know this is Slashdot and articles are not read, as usual TFA refers to that. Higher bandwidth users can pay $80, $30 more, for a 10 GB plan. And Verizon charges $10 for every additional GB over the plan.
Now just how fast could I burn through the bandwidth allotted? For years I've said I wanted mobile wireless broadband. I love both hiking and photography and would love being able to upload my photos to my server while on a hike. The DSRL camera I'm looking at now, to get, is the Canon EOS 1D Mark III and it shoots 21 megapixel images at 14 bits per colour. One raw file runs more than 25 MB so 40 shots be more than 1 GB. A medium format camera takes photos with twice as many mega-pixels easily.
If a user wants to guzzle gigabytes, Verizon wants that person to sign up for DSL or FiOS.
TFA gives the above as a reason Verizon caps the LTE service. That's stupid as Verizon has no presence in many locations like mine. In those locations I bet many people would pay more for mobile wireless broadband. What Verizon could do also is bundle that 5GB LTE with DSL or FiOS.
How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.
You need to learn the definition of "bribe" too. The post I replied to said nothing about campaign donations being illegal or dishonest. And they are not illegal or dishonest.
unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong.
And what does that have to do with Ted Steven's conviction? He was convicted in an Alaska court room far away from Washington, DC.
This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures.
Are you sure that's all? In the California governor's race alone Meg Whitman spent more than $140 million of her own money in the campaign. All together she spent more than $160 million. Her opponent Jerry Brown's spending topped $50 million. Now according to those who claim money buys political offices she should have won, spending 3 tymes as much as he did, but he won.
On Anthony Kennedy's decision on the Citizens United case:
It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.
They, the Navy, couldn't have. I'm tempted to say it was deliberate but I'd think there were too many people involved for it to continue to be a secret. The fact is though is the US government or politicians have done far worse.
I don't recall who but someone up-thread told me they could tell me things the US government has done that would shock me. That's hardly likely.
I don't know why but it took me several minutes for me to find some references such as this one: deploying to Eadt Timor dated December 28 2007. Or this one also about East Timor, dated January 27 2007. There are earlier posts I've made about the US's support of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. Or massacres committed by parties in Central and South America the US supported. Or the overthrow of the democratically elected presidents in Chile in 1973 and Iran in 1953 which installed Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi as the Shah. Hell the US did nothing about many massacres it knew was happening. And let's not forget what the US did to the native American Indians either.
If it sounds like I'm angry, that's because I am. However if it also sounds like I hate the US, that is totally wrong. I love the USA, I just don't like some of the actions it took or was done in it's name. Usually by politicians.
Are you arguing against "organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations" or just poor implementations of it?
Obviously I've been using a different meaning for bureaucracy. To me one was where a bunch of different people had to "be in the loop" and had to approve this or that. One of my dictionaries defines "bureaucracy" as "excessive official routine". Another says it's a government regarded as oppressive and inflexible.
Slashdot Mirror
However, according to the cult of the market, the "Invisible Hand" is supposed to push the retail cost down to the cost of production.
That tells us that the telecoms market is quite unhealthy in the U.S. OR that the theory of markets is wrong.
There is no free market when there is government interference in said markets. And there is most definitely government interference in these markets.
The problem has been around for as long as phones could actually use data and shows no signs of correction. If the market can't correct any faster than that, it's worthless.
You're right, it's been around as long as phones have been and the problems will continue until the government stops interfering. Yes, interfering. First government gave monopolies to land-line companies like ATT and to mass media broadcasters like Fox and Clear Channel. I know, I know, Fox and Clear Channel are relatively new at broadcasting.
Falcon
What happens when all the carriers get together and say "I think a Megabyte is worth a dollar more?"
Where there are no monopolies or restrictions on competition and new players see an opportunity they will enter the market with lower prices.
Falcon
why don't you just download some full hd and see the difference yourself.
Why should I? I don't watch movies on my laptop, I watch them on my TV. And that is an SDTV, I don't have a HDTV.
Falcon
save yourself some money and get a Dell S2309W if you can sacrifice the 1" difference.
Why? The Dell has a Twisted nematic (TN) panel, about the worse type you can get. I'm going to be editing photos which should be done on at least an IPS panel though E-IPS and P-IPS panels are better.
Falcon
I'm speculating wildly here, but If they have no DSL presence in your area
The only presence Verizon has in my area is on the airwaves.
Falcon
I have been hit several times by massive data bills, and however easy you think it would be to avoid, it is not.
Did I say it was easy to avoid?
It almost makes me want to push the other way on net neutrality. Let them make all the rules they want, just offer me good service at a reasonable (even if rather high) cost.
Broadband access and net neutrality would be a non-issue if there were a free market, but there isn't. Land-line vendors have a veritable lock-in with easements and use of the airwaves requires licenses, another lock-in, or the same easements land-line providers use.
Falcon
And Verizon just sold all that FiOS, DSL and landline business to Frontier.
Really? At least article says Verizon didn't sell its service everywhere, such as Virginia. Another one says it sold "its rural assets in 14 states to Frontier Communications (NYSE: FTR) last year."
Falcon
So are you ready and willing to say money does not always buy elections? Or is it only in "special circumstances" does the lower spender win?
Falcon
Anyway, X runs fine on OS X.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't integrate well with the base system, and you have to put up with either OSX window management or running X fullscreen.
Since Tiger OSX can and does run X fullscreen or rootless.
Falcon
Even if you really believe you will get competition in a market with a 10 figure barrier to entry, the spectrum is scarce
That's what they say but the airwaves aren't as scarce as they're made out to be. Of course it's to the incumbents' favor that scarcity is the perception.
The problem with the telecoms is similar to those of the even more transparently criminal "privatized electric utilities" - who can only fail to profit if they somehow manage to build more capacity and alleviate the shortage of their commodity.
Quite the contrary, most power suppliers in the US are limited to what the states' Public Utility Commission allows them to charge.
various funny attempts at market-oriented reform from the 90's.
What attempts at reform? The only one I'm aware of is California's re-regulation. Yes, re-regulation, while the state got rid of some regulations it introduced others. For instance the state separated the generation of electricity from the distribution of that electricity. The same company could not own the generators and the power lines. Then while the distributors were barred from raising the rates they charged end users for the electricity, the state allowed the generators to raise their own prices. Somewhere or another I found an economic study showing how bad CA's new regulatory regime was but I lost it.
Falcon
There is no free market. So you can wait forever and a day.
Shouldn't a competitor come out and win our business by responding to consumer demands and giving us fast access with unlimited data at a good price?
Competitors would if there was a free market but there isn't.
Falcon
I'm just throwing out ideas that don't involve 2" screens -- I personally wouldn't try streaming HD at all
Okay.
Falcon
Even my near-first-gen netbook has a larger resolution screen than a DVD...
But even if you use the netbook to watch video, many others will not. For me as well as others, the bigger the display the better. Though I have watched videos on my laptop's LCD I much prefer plugging in my 21" external monitor. I am also looking to get a bigger monitor, at least 24" like the HP LP2475w.
Falcon
See, I made sure to be smart and when I planned on using data, I went with a network that allowed for unlimited.
And there have always been unlimited data plans. NOT!!! I still recall the first mobile phones I saw, they were brick sized and 1 minute of use cost a lot, there were no unlimited plans.
Falcon
No it's not.
You aren't going to hit 5 whole GB just by browsing the web.
But I can hit it by taking 200 photographs and uploading them to my server.
Of course I'd pay more for that capability, but I bet in less developed nations it will be cheaper when it is available. The US is a leader in technology, for now, but the prices for that technology is high. That's because there is no free market. With monopolies providers can demand whatever they want. And while other nations don't have much in the way of free markets either, they're more interested in getting technology into as many people's hands as they can instead of wringing out the most money from each person's hand.
Falcon
Why the hell are you measuring bandwidth in seconds?
Cost per tyme was used, "Nearly three cents per second?".
And why do you need over 5 GB on your phone?
Elsewhere I said why I would love to use mobile wireless broadband.
Falcon
Maybe because it's tethered and being viewed with a laptop?
I'm typing this on a 17" laptop and I don't know if there will be much difference between watching a standard and an HD video on it. Sure, there would be a difference if it were being edited, but then again if so then a larger external monitor, one that can be calibrated with high fidelity, should be used instead. I got a 17" laptop specifically to have a larger display for outdoor photography, but I would not use its monitor to do much editing.
Falcon
I bet it doesn't even stop the download when you exceed the limit. It just goes on to charge per megabyte or something.
I know this is Slashdot and articles are not read, as usual TFA refers to that. Higher bandwidth users can pay $80, $30 more, for a 10 GB plan. And Verizon charges $10 for every additional GB over the plan.
Now just how fast could I burn through the bandwidth allotted? For years I've said I wanted mobile wireless broadband. I love both hiking and photography and would love being able to upload my photos to my server while on a hike. The DSRL camera I'm looking at now, to get, is the Canon EOS 1D Mark III and it shoots 21 megapixel images at 14 bits per colour. One raw file runs more than 25 MB so 40 shots be more than 1 GB. A medium format camera takes photos with twice as many mega-pixels easily.
Falcon
If a user wants to guzzle gigabytes, Verizon wants that person to sign up for DSL or FiOS.
TFA gives the above as a reason Verizon caps the LTE service. That's stupid as Verizon has no presence in many locations like mine. In those locations I bet many people would pay more for mobile wireless broadband. What Verizon could do also is bundle that 5GB LTE with DSL or FiOS.
Falcon
Meg Whitman spending her own money on her campaign is not independent expenditures.
But she still spend way more than her opponent yet still lost the race. Money does not buy elections.
Falcon
How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.
You need to learn the definition of "bribe" too. The post I replied to said nothing about campaign donations being illegal or dishonest. And they are not illegal or dishonest.
Falcon
unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong.
And what does that have to do with Ted Steven's conviction? He was convicted in an Alaska court room far away from Washington, DC.
Falcon
This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures.
Are you sure that's all? In the California governor's race alone Meg Whitman spent more than $140 million of her own money in the campaign. All together she spent more than $160 million. Her opponent Jerry Brown's spending topped $50 million. Now according to those who claim money buys political offices she should have won, spending 3 tymes as much as he did, but he won.
On Anthony Kennedy's decision on the Citizens United case:
It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.
It was naive of him. However if a law were proposed that addressed full disclosure, and only that, then it may pass USSC scrutiny. Now if that was his thinking I don't know how the government's lawyers overlooked that thinking. A quick google returns results saying that corporations do not have to disclose them. The first two results, Why Don’t Corporations Have To Disclose Their Campaign Contributions Like Unions? and again Why don't corporations have to disclose their campaign contributions like unions? answer the question.
Falcon
They, the Navy, couldn't have. I'm tempted to say it was deliberate but I'd think there were too many people involved for it to continue to be a secret. The fact is though is the US government or politicians have done far worse.
I don't recall who but someone up-thread told me they could tell me things the US government has done that would shock me. That's hardly likely.
I don't know why but it took me several minutes for me to find some references such as this one: deploying to Eadt Timor dated December 28 2007. Or this one also about East Timor, dated January 27 2007. There are earlier posts I've made about the US's support of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. Or massacres committed by parties in Central and South America the US supported. Or the overthrow of the democratically elected presidents in Chile in 1973 and Iran in 1953 which installed Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi as the Shah. Hell the US did nothing about many massacres it knew was happening. And let's not forget what the US did to the native American Indians either.
If it sounds like I'm angry, that's because I am. However if it also sounds like I hate the US, that is totally wrong. I love the USA, I just don't like some of the actions it took or was done in it's name. Usually by politicians.
Falcon
Are you arguing against "organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations" or just poor implementations of it?
Obviously I've been using a different meaning for bureaucracy. To me one was where a bunch of different people had to "be in the loop" and had to approve this or that. One of my dictionaries defines "bureaucracy" as "excessive official routine". Another says it's a government regarded as oppressive and inflexible.
Falcon