In the last years, Apple has first switched to Mac OS X, then to Intel chips. In comparison, what used to run on a Windows machine in 1999 still runs quite well on a Windows XP box, and I think it will too on Vista.
Ah but when Apple switched to OSX Macs could still run older software. And with the switch to Intels software for PowerPCs can run on Mactels as well. Though I haven't tried or seen it myself I've even heard software for Macs running System 7 can run on Mactels. That's an area Apple has been pretty good as making as painless as possible, migration.
beancounters decreed a move to PCs - even worse all the servers went to NT.
With the exception of 2003 and Vista I've used Windows since 3.x and of them NT 4, Workstation, is the only one I have not had trouble with. Then again I have it installed on a DEC Alpha PC and because I was able to get much software installed on it I haven't used it much. Still it has never froze on me or showed me the BSOD, however the first tyme I used XP it froze before it finished booting. And the PC was a brand new Dell.
Anyway I guess the points I'm trying to make are
1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)
Though I haven't used so I can't make an educated remark, I've heard Ubuntu is ready for the desktop. I've been thinking of getting a Live CD to try it out. Linspire Linux, I can hear the catcalls now, is desktop ready though. Heck, once booted up it even looks like Windows.
Which is ironic considering at one point the Amiga was cheaper and better than the PC... all down to marketing I suppose... I guess earlier in my rant i discounted the Amiga as a desktop system;-) but that is ok, most other people did as well.
Commodore utterly failed in it's marketing of the Amiga. I thought that with it's resources Gateway would bring it back to life when they bought the Amiga from Escom however they didn't do anything with it.
I think I read that story. I was going in and out of California quite a bit at that time. But wasn't the problem with the wind generators something to do with enviromentalist blocking the right of way for new cables to go in?
I don't recall exactly what prevented new cables from being lain out but I'm thinking it was ConEdison, or whatever the company was, that didn't want the lines strung up.
Create debt. Maintain debt. Keep people in debt. Work them until they die of debt.
What part of that system would government subsidy fit into?
Subsidies fit in where government steals your hard earned money to give to those it subsidizes. US agribusinesses get billions in subsidies that was taken from workers' paychecks. These corporations then sell food in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow the food. This drives them off the farms, some then migrate north and become "illegal immigrants". In India farmers driven to desparation commit suicide because they can't compeat with US and EU based businesses that get subsidies.
The solution to the problem described above is decentralization.
The solution is to make the government stay within the limits put on it by the USA Constitution!!! This will decentralize power.
They used this as an excuse to just build them in somone elses back yard but that cam back to byte them when california couldn't pay their own electric bills and some of these out of state agencies sold elswhere are stopped production.
It wasn't just a matter of NIMBYism what caused to blackout and brownouts in CA. I wish I could find the article I used to have, but shortly after those rolling blackouts a newspaper in Australia, I think the Sydney Morning Herald, had an article about how one powerplant in CA sat idle during this tyme. The powerplant was a wind farm and because there wasn't enough power cables running to the wind gennies they just sat there when they could of been producing electricity. Now there's the Govinator pushing his million solar rooftops program. If there had been a million rofftops with PVs back then those blackouts very well may never of had happened. What's worse is that if pres Jimmy Carter had been successful, he pushed a program like this as president but Reagan put a stop to it when he became president, there would of been no reason for them to happen.
My code works fine. The difference is that English has the functional imperative to communicate information. It's only important that the spelling and grammar be sufficient, not perfect, to achieve that imperative. If I were to misspell a few words, or miss a punctuation marks, you can still understand me clearly.
Yes, people may still be able to understand you but computers won't and if your spelling and grammar aren't correct this probably carries over to your program. If so then your program shouldn't work at all.
Falcon
Oh, and while I understand you, I can't understand some of the other posts here do to poor grammar or spelling.
Government does subsidize the network. Governments have given telcommunications companies money and or tax breaks to buildout the networks therefore they are being subsidized.
Someone came up with the bright idea of charging the other end. Google is paying almost nothing for their connection (check prices on OC-192 connections) and is making billions off the people looking there. Maybe they could pay more?
Google does pay for their connection, they pay thier provider. What the telcoms want is to double bill them. If thier provider isn't making money it's thier responsibility to raise prices, it's not my ISP's responsibility to try to extort more money from Google.
Wow. A computer program came up with a result that supports a particular political position. This is a surprise?
RTFA, it doesn't say anything about supporting a specific political position. It however does say "The UF researchers, who took no position on the issue". Either they didn't have a political position or you're calling them a liar.
Of course it does, but then your competitor has an incentive to expand and upgrade their service so that they can charge lower prices. How can the model not take *that* into account?
So the competitor has to go through the process of requesting government approval to laydown new cable or fiber? And what is the likelihood of them getting that approval? Afterall if they can't have their own cable or fiber to the curb then they can't offer competiton now can they?
If this kind of simulation had any validity, planned economy and sovietism would work. We know it doesn't.
This is nowhere near being a planned economy or collectivism. That's basically what we have now, only with government granted monopolies instead.
Then let me ask you a question: can you explain why in the U.S., where there is most definietly not a monopoly air carrier, that travel between two given cities at a certain time of day costs roughly the same for a given class of service across all of the major airlines (Southwest being the obvious exception)?
Because as you say there is no monopoly in airlines. However there are monopolies in phone and cable service. Provided they have the money anyone can start thier own airline however people are blocked from starting thier own cable and phone businesses as they won't be allowed to lay thier own cables or fiber, not without government okay, and how many government allow, forget 10, but only three companies to lay them to offer phone or cable service? Then you have to add the money the government gave to the cable and phone companies the money to build out the network. They received millions of dollars for this.
Look.. I don't support Net Neutrality. Or specifically, I don't support a net neutrality law because I don't think it's required. It'll just get politicians involved in something they really don't understand, and getting politicians involved is almost always a bad idea.
Normally I'd agree however in the case of landline based communications I disagree. First these comnpanies, whether phone or cable, are given a monopoly by the local governments. Though there might some places where it is available I know of no place where a person has a choice as to who provides their cable or phone service. There is no competition. Secondly, these companies have received millions of dollars from government to build out thier networks, and as long as they receive taxpayer money or a monopoly they should be required to be net neutral.
Having said that I believe the actual, physical, infrastructure should be owned by a local agency or government which then offers open access to anybody who wants to offer any service the network can handle.
On the surface yes, but in practice no. I live in Washington DC and have an option between Comcast cable, or DSL through Verizion (or speakeasy etc by using Verizon's lines). So, 2 options really, and the DSL route requires a 1 year contract with a 300$ breakout fee. I can't see myself having much recourse if my ISP starts to shape traffic. Guess I could always go back to dialup.
You signed an agreement or contract didn't you? If they didn't include anything about degrading or slowing down traffic form some websites then they are in breach of contract which should allow you to leave the service without having to pay the breakout fee. Also if after trying to get the company to stop penalizing content providers for not payikng up you can also file complains with the BBB and the local appropriate government agency.
It may not have much of an effect if only a small groupd complains but if a bunch do then it could have a negative impact on the business.
I mean would you really settle for one highspeed ISP for the phone or cable conection when someone else could leae the lines at cost and sell the service to you at a discount?
Without regulations opening up the market why would any business that owns the cable or phone lines open up those lines to competitors? Especially when they know a competitor may be able to sell services cheaper than the incumbent? While I believe in free market capitalism, this is one area I believe a local agency or government should own the infrastructure, which then opens up access so anybody with the capabilities can offer services using the infrastructure.
Sure anyone could go through all the channels, get the rightaway, lay cables on top of cables, push it the last mile (to the house or business) and seel the same Internet that the ISP's already use.
The problem with this is more than likely the local government won't allow competitors to lay cable, fiber, or other landlines on the same right of way. Instead that local government has given the incumbent a monopoly. Then there's also the fact that governments have given telcos and others money directly or indirectly in the form of tax beaks for building the infrastructure, and now they're whining they need more money to build it.
Don't take a sloppy implementation of deregulation like what happended in a primarily democrate california and their energy market as fact that deregulation doesn't work.
Ah, how people fall for California's so called deregulation of the energy market. CA did not deregulate the market, what they did was shift regulations around. They got rid of some regulations but started others. For instance where before companies where allowed to own both powerplants and transmission lines, now the same company can not own both of them. This was called "decoupling". Then they also told the businesses that owned the lines and sold power to endusers they couldn't raise their prices, but they don't bar the power companies from raising their prices to the transporters. As stated above I think the best way to solve this is for a local agency or government to own the infrastructure then allow open access to resellers of services.
It just isn't a fair statment to say deregulation is evil when a lot of the regulation is the problem.
Ah, we agree!!! However it's usually those who are being regulated who create the regulations. They then create regulations to prevent competition in thier markets.
... we don't need regulations to enforce it. The companies who refuse to get it will eventually be forced to change, suffer from disruptive technology, or be eliminated from the gene pool
While this is true when there's competition most places in the US don't have a choice as to who they get broadband from. Many places still can't even get broadband, at least without needing a satellite dish. I'm looking forward to widespread WiMax however even it has a limited range.
Considering there are only THREE usable fully-separated channels in WiFi, 1, 6, & 11. If you DON'T grant a WiFi monopoly it will only lead to a frequency and amplifier war.
While there might be an initial airwaves war eventually those companies trying to get into the market will sit down and come up with an agreement. If there is no agreement then nobody makes a profit and they will go out of business. And it's not as though a company can pump up amperage because they'd then find themself on the receiving end of a lawsuit. I recall many years ago this guy across the street from us mounted an antenna outside his house which he used for the cb radio he had inside. We knew whenever he went on the air, we could hear him speaking through our toaster, and eventually because of all the interference he was shutdown. The same would happen to wifi providers if they tried to outpower their competition. As it is now some hospitals are banning cellphone use inside because of interference with electronic equipment, and if a wifi provider pumps up the power around one more than likely they'd have a lawsuit slapped on them quick. If not by the hospital then by someone who lost a relative because of the interference.
Also there's not really a scarcity of airwaves. The airwaves were divied up in 1932 with the technology available then. With today's tech more stations can be on the same bands than was possible then without interfering with each other A couple of years ago IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" had an article on this, the technical aspects. Then I think it was last year the CATO Institute commissioned another study which also concluded the airwaves should be redone using today's tech. Simply today's tech allows more efficient use of the airwwaves than the tech in 1932 did, yet we're still using the airwaves as lain out then.
capitalized basis. So owning the equipment is not a big deal ~ owning the spectrum
Is this a redhering? TFA says nothing about what radio spectrums will be used and not all radio spectrums are licensed. For instance the wifi frequencies aren't.
I see it today in our cable television monopoly, which is municipally 'outsourced' to a cable provider. This is what most municipalities will end up doing if wireless is publically owned. Our service provider, Time Warner, is too stupid to make our cable modem work.
Your cable is a government granted monopoly. Wireless on the other hand can allow competition. Unlike cable, where you're locked into one provider, wireless tech allows you to choose who will provider your service. "Your service sucks so I'm switching! And you can't keep me from switching because you don't have a monopoly."
Universal WiFi in an urban area is a pipe-dream. Yes you can point to tiny examples here and there like Mountain View where a company with more money than God can make it work, but that's hardly a fair comparison. Downtown Atlanta is not like Mountain View.
Okay instead of Mountain View, let's try San Francisco. That company with "more money than God" along with Earthlink is offering free, as well as a paid for service, wireless there.
So you guys wouldn't mind if municipalities provided the capital (=network infrastructure) and absorbed the risks and costs of maintaining the infrastructure while ISPs took home the profits?
Simple to remedy the cost, don't offer access below cost. Instead offer a price point that allows you to recoup your cost as well as maintain the infrastructure. With open access to the infrastructure ISPs will be either working to provide the lowest cost service, the best quality of service, or a combination of the two. It's not a monopoly like the landline phone service where if you don't like how much you pay or the quality of service you get you can't just switch to a new company.
One other issue that hasn't come up yet is convenience. When i cancelled my parents' overpriced and underperforming Charter internet service, i had to drive an hour to Charter's "local" office to do it. I could have walked to city hall in 10 minutes.
You just pointed out another reason it's better for the infrastructure to be locally owned. If you don't like the quality of service or whatever you don't have to drive an hour to lodge a complaint. And since those you complain to are also locals they may very well be more willing to work to fix problems than a corporation headquartered on the other side of the country is willing to work with you.
But, really, I've known lots of people, some definitely on the lower socio-economic scale, day laborers, that just really have no interest in computers or the internet, and frankly, just don't have the time after a long, hard day of manual labor.
I've worked with a number of poor people, having worked through day labor pools myself, and a number of them were homeless. For this reason and others they may not of been interested in having a computer never mind internet access. However many of those today would benefit very much from having access. Not only could they get an education but if that didn't interest them, they could also use the access to find better paying jobs. And if perchance a person working manual labor wants to improve their economic circumstances then they need to do more than just work. Though they may be tired after a day of labor if they spent a few more hours, heck only a couple of hours is really needed, a few days a week they could then inprove their situation. Even as I worked through a day labor pool I was still a college student taking classes. Then after I got a permanent fulltime job in construction by working through the labor pool I kept taking classes.
Yea, I keep hearing about how bad Comcast and Verison are. However, while my ISP is Earthlink, it's through what was Time Warner's Roadrunner but is now Comcast, and my cellphone service is through Verison and I haven't had any trouble with either service.
I'll do even better and stick to the topic by pointing you towards two projects that provide municipal FTTH. Both projects prompted the telcos, to call the state legislature and attempt to legislate these projects out of existence.
While I normally consider myself pretty far to the Right on the economic scale, I think there are certainly some areas where there are bona fide public interests, and where government is the most capable agency of completing a project (or is the only one you'd want to own and monopolize the finished product); in these areas it doesn't make sense to not do it within the public sector.
I'm the same, though I am libertarian and believe in freedom including economic freedom I also believe local communities and governments should be the ones that own the local infrastruture. Otherwise you end up with government granted monopolies.
I can count the number of fabulous free-internet-for-everybody on.... no fingers of one hand.
Where in the world does "free" access come from? TFA does not use the word "free" once. However Google and Earthlink, both for profit businesses, are setting up wireless broadband access in San Francisco. The two companies are setting up a wireless mesh wherein businesses and residences can signup for a free Meraki wireless router, and can buy a range extender for $50, to join the network. The free basic service is capable of download speeds of around 1Mbps, and there's a paid for service that offers faster speeds. If profitable businesses can offer free service what prevents governments from doing the same? That is other than said governemnt services make it harder for a business to enter the market if they wanted. However they don't want to do otherwise they step up to the plate and setup a network like Earthlink and Google are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
In the last years, Apple has first switched to Mac OS X, then to Intel chips. In comparison, what used to run on a Windows machine in 1999 still runs quite well on a Windows XP box, and I think it will too on Vista.
Ah but when Apple switched to OSX Macs could still run older software. And with the switch to Intels software for PowerPCs can run on Mactels as well. Though I haven't tried or seen it myself I've even heard software for Macs running System 7 can run on Mactels. That's an area Apple has been pretty good as making as painless as possible, migration.
Falconbeancounters decreed a move to PCs - even worse all the servers went to NT.
With the exception of 2003 and Vista I've used Windows since 3.x and of them NT 4, Workstation, is the only one I have not had trouble with. Then again I have it installed on a DEC Alpha PC and because I was able to get much software installed on it I haven't used it much. Still it has never froze on me or showed me the BSOD, however the first tyme I used XP it froze before it finished booting. And the PC was a brand new Dell.
Anyway I guess the points I'm trying to make are
1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)
Though I haven't used so I can't make an educated remark, I've heard Ubuntu is ready for the desktop. I've been thinking of getting a Live CD to try it out. Linspire Linux, I can hear the catcalls now, is desktop ready though. Heck, once booted up it even looks like Windows.
Which is ironic considering at one point the Amiga was cheaper and better than the PC... all down to marketing I suppose... I guess earlier in my rant i discounted the Amiga as a desktop system ;-) but that is ok, most other people did as well.
Commodore utterly failed in it's marketing of the Amiga. I thought that with it's resources Gateway would bring it back to life when they bought the Amiga from Escom however they didn't do anything with it.
FalconI think I read that story. I was going in and out of California quite a bit at that time. But wasn't the problem with the wind generators something to do with enviromentalist blocking the right of way for new cables to go in?
I don't recall exactly what prevented new cables from being lain out but I'm thinking it was ConEdison, or whatever the company was, that didn't want the lines strung up.
FalconCreate debt. Maintain debt. Keep people in debt. Work them until they die of debt.
What part of that system would government subsidy fit into?
Subsidies fit in where government steals your hard earned money to give to those it subsidizes. US agribusinesses get billions in subsidies that was taken from workers' paychecks. These corporations then sell food in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow the food. This drives them off the farms, some then migrate north and become "illegal immigrants". In India farmers driven to desparation commit suicide because they can't compeat with US and EU based businesses that get subsidies.
The solution to the problem described above is decentralization.
The solution is to make the government stay within the limits put on it by the USA Constitution!!! This will decentralize power.
FalconThey used this as an excuse to just build them in somone elses back yard but that cam back to byte them when california couldn't pay their own electric bills and some of these out of state agencies sold elswhere are stopped production.
It wasn't just a matter of NIMBYism what caused to blackout and brownouts in CA. I wish I could find the article I used to have, but shortly after those rolling blackouts a newspaper in Australia, I think the Sydney Morning Herald, had an article about how one powerplant in CA sat idle during this tyme. The powerplant was a wind farm and because there wasn't enough power cables running to the wind gennies they just sat there when they could of been producing electricity. Now there's the Govinator pushing his million solar rooftops program. If there had been a million rofftops with PVs back then those blackouts very well may never of had happened. What's worse is that if pres Jimmy Carter had been successful, he pushed a program like this as president but Reagan put a stop to it when he became president, there would of been no reason for them to happen.
FalconThe old adage is, of course, that you don't have to be good at spelling to be a good programmer, just consistent in your errors.
But your syntax, grammar, has to be correct for the language you're programming in.
FalconMy code works fine. The difference is that English has the functional imperative to communicate information. It's only important that the spelling and grammar be sufficient, not perfect, to achieve that imperative. If I were to misspell a few words, or miss a punctuation marks, you can still understand me clearly.
Yes, people may still be able to understand you but computers won't and if your spelling and grammar aren't correct this probably carries over to your program. If so then your program shouldn't work at all.
Falcon
Oh, and while I understand you, I can't understand some of the other posts here do to poor grammar or spelling.Government does subsidize the network. Governments have given telcommunications companies money and or tax breaks to buildout the networks therefore they are being subsidized.
Someone came up with the bright idea of charging the other end. Google is paying almost nothing for their connection (check prices on OC-192 connections) and is making billions off the people looking there. Maybe they could pay more?
Google does pay for their connection, they pay thier provider. What the telcoms want is to double bill them. If thier provider isn't making money it's thier responsibility to raise prices, it's not my ISP's responsibility to try to extort more money from Google.
FalconWow. A computer program came up with a result that supports a particular political position. This is a surprise?
RTFA, it doesn't say anything about supporting a specific political position. It however does say "The UF researchers, who took no position on the issue". Either they didn't have a political position or you're calling them a liar.
FalconOf course it does, but then your competitor has an incentive to expand and upgrade their service so that they can charge lower prices. How can the model not take *that* into account?
So the competitor has to go through the process of requesting government approval to laydown new cable or fiber? And what is the likelihood of them getting that approval? Afterall if they can't have their own cable or fiber to the curb then they can't offer competiton now can they?
If this kind of simulation had any validity, planned economy and sovietism would work. We know it doesn't.
This is nowhere near being a planned economy or collectivism. That's basically what we have now, only with government granted monopolies instead.
FalconThen let me ask you a question: can you explain why in the U.S., where there is most definietly not a monopoly air carrier, that travel between two given cities at a certain time of day costs roughly the same for a given class of service across all of the major airlines (Southwest being the obvious exception)?
Because as you say there is no monopoly in airlines. However there are monopolies in phone and cable service. Provided they have the money anyone can start thier own airline however people are blocked from starting thier own cable and phone businesses as they won't be allowed to lay thier own cables or fiber, not without government okay, and how many government allow, forget 10, but only three companies to lay them to offer phone or cable service? Then you have to add the money the government gave to the cable and phone companies the money to build out the network. They received millions of dollars for this.
FalconLook.. I don't support Net Neutrality. Or specifically, I don't support a net neutrality law because I don't think it's required. It'll just get politicians involved in something they really don't understand, and getting politicians involved is almost always a bad idea.
Normally I'd agree however in the case of landline based communications I disagree. First these comnpanies, whether phone or cable, are given a monopoly by the local governments. Though there might some places where it is available I know of no place where a person has a choice as to who provides their cable or phone service. There is no competition. Secondly, these companies have received millions of dollars from government to build out thier networks, and as long as they receive taxpayer money or a monopoly they should be required to be net neutral.
Having said that I believe the actual, physical, infrastructure should be owned by a local agency or government which then offers open access to anybody who wants to offer any service the network can handle.
FalconOn the surface yes, but in practice no. I live in Washington DC and have an option between Comcast cable, or DSL through Verizion (or speakeasy etc by using Verizon's lines). So, 2 options really, and the DSL route requires a 1 year contract with a 300$ breakout fee. I can't see myself having much recourse if my ISP starts to shape traffic. Guess I could always go back to dialup.
You signed an agreement or contract didn't you? If they didn't include anything about degrading or slowing down traffic form some websites then they are in breach of contract which should allow you to leave the service without having to pay the breakout fee. Also if after trying to get the company to stop penalizing content providers for not payikng up you can also file complains with the BBB and the local appropriate government agency.
It may not have much of an effect if only a small groupd complains but if a bunch do then it could have a negative impact on the business.
FalconI mean would you really settle for one highspeed ISP for the phone or cable conection when someone else could leae the lines at cost and sell the service to you at a discount?
Without regulations opening up the market why would any business that owns the cable or phone lines open up those lines to competitors? Especially when they know a competitor may be able to sell services cheaper than the incumbent? While I believe in free market capitalism, this is one area I believe a local agency or government should own the infrastructure, which then opens up access so anybody with the capabilities can offer services using the infrastructure.
Sure anyone could go through all the channels, get the rightaway, lay cables on top of cables, push it the last mile (to the house or business) and seel the same Internet that the ISP's already use.
The problem with this is more than likely the local government won't allow competitors to lay cable, fiber, or other landlines on the same right of way. Instead that local government has given the incumbent a monopoly. Then there's also the fact that governments have given telcos and others money directly or indirectly in the form of tax beaks for building the infrastructure, and now they're whining they need more money to build it.
Don't take a sloppy implementation of deregulation like what happended in a primarily democrate california and their energy market as fact that deregulation doesn't work.
Ah, how people fall for California's so called deregulation of the energy market. CA did not deregulate the market, what they did was shift regulations around. They got rid of some regulations but started others. For instance where before companies where allowed to own both powerplants and transmission lines, now the same company can not own both of them. This was called "decoupling". Then they also told the businesses that owned the lines and sold power to endusers they couldn't raise their prices, but they don't bar the power companies from raising their prices to the transporters. As stated above I think the best way to solve this is for a local agency or government to own the infrastructure then allow open access to resellers of services.
It just isn't a fair statment to say deregulation is evil when a lot of the regulation is the problem.
Ah, we agree!!! However it's usually those who are being regulated who create the regulations. They then create regulations to prevent competition in thier markets.
Falcon... we don't need regulations to enforce it. The companies who refuse to get it will eventually be forced to change, suffer from disruptive technology, or be eliminated from the gene pool
While this is true when there's competition most places in the US don't have a choice as to who they get broadband from. Many places still can't even get broadband, at least without needing a satellite dish. I'm looking forward to widespread WiMax however even it has a limited range.
FalconI don't know about others, but I hack code and I don't give two shits about spelling and grammar.
So, your code rarely works correctly?
FalconConsidering there are only THREE usable fully-separated channels in WiFi, 1, 6, & 11. If you DON'T grant a WiFi monopoly it will only lead to a frequency and amplifier war.
While there might be an initial airwaves war eventually those companies trying to get into the market will sit down and come up with an agreement. If there is no agreement then nobody makes a profit and they will go out of business. And it's not as though a company can pump up amperage because they'd then find themself on the receiving end of a lawsuit. I recall many years ago this guy across the street from us mounted an antenna outside his house which he used for the cb radio he had inside. We knew whenever he went on the air, we could hear him speaking through our toaster, and eventually because of all the interference he was shutdown. The same would happen to wifi providers if they tried to outpower their competition. As it is now some hospitals are banning cellphone use inside because of interference with electronic equipment, and if a wifi provider pumps up the power around one more than likely they'd have a lawsuit slapped on them quick. If not by the hospital then by someone who lost a relative because of the interference.
Also there's not really a scarcity of airwaves. The airwaves were divied up in 1932 with the technology available then. With today's tech more stations can be on the same bands than was possible then without interfering with each other A couple of years ago IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" had an article on this, the technical aspects. Then I think it was last year the CATO Institute commissioned another study which also concluded the airwaves should be redone using today's tech. Simply today's tech allows more efficient use of the airwwaves than the tech in 1932 did, yet we're still using the airwaves as lain out then.
Falconcapitalized basis. So owning the equipment is not a big deal ~ owning the spectrum
Is this a redhering? TFA says nothing about what radio spectrums will be used and not all radio spectrums are licensed. For instance the wifi frequencies aren't.
I see it today in our cable television monopoly, which is municipally 'outsourced' to a cable provider. This is what most municipalities will end up doing if wireless is publically owned. Our service provider, Time Warner, is too stupid to make our cable modem work.
Your cable is a government granted monopoly. Wireless on the other hand can allow competition. Unlike cable, where you're locked into one provider, wireless tech allows you to choose who will provider your service. "Your service sucks so I'm switching! And you can't keep me from switching because you don't have a monopoly."
FalconUniversal WiFi in an urban area is a pipe-dream. Yes you can point to tiny examples here and there like Mountain View where a company with more money than God can make it work, but that's hardly a fair comparison. Downtown Atlanta is not like Mountain View.
Okay instead of Mountain View, let's try San Francisco. That company with "more money than God" along with Earthlink is offering free, as well as a paid for service, wireless there.
FalconSo you guys wouldn't mind if municipalities provided the capital (=network infrastructure) and absorbed the risks and costs of maintaining the infrastructure while ISPs took home the profits?
Simple to remedy the cost, don't offer access below cost. Instead offer a price point that allows you to recoup your cost as well as maintain the infrastructure. With open access to the infrastructure ISPs will be either working to provide the lowest cost service, the best quality of service, or a combination of the two. It's not a monopoly like the landline phone service where if you don't like how much you pay or the quality of service you get you can't just switch to a new company.
One other issue that hasn't come up yet is convenience. When i cancelled my parents' overpriced and underperforming Charter internet service, i had to drive an hour to Charter's "local" office to do it. I could have walked to city hall in 10 minutes.
You just pointed out another reason it's better for the infrastructure to be locally owned. If you don't like the quality of service or whatever you don't have to drive an hour to lodge a complaint. And since those you complain to are also locals they may very well be more willing to work to fix problems than a corporation headquartered on the other side of the country is willing to work with you.
FalconBut, really, I've known lots of people, some definitely on the lower socio-economic scale, day laborers, that just really have no interest in computers or the internet, and frankly, just don't have the time after a long, hard day of manual labor.
I've worked with a number of poor people, having worked through day labor pools myself, and a number of them were homeless. For this reason and others they may not of been interested in having a computer never mind internet access. However many of those today would benefit very much from having access. Not only could they get an education but if that didn't interest them, they could also use the access to find better paying jobs. And if perchance a person working manual labor wants to improve their economic circumstances then they need to do more than just work. Though they may be tired after a day of labor if they spent a few more hours, heck only a couple of hours is really needed, a few days a week they could then inprove their situation. Even as I worked through a day labor pool I was still a college student taking classes. Then after I got a permanent fulltime job in construction by working through the labor pool I kept taking classes.
FalconYea, I keep hearing about how bad Comcast and Verison are. However, while my ISP is Earthlink, it's through what was Time Warner's Roadrunner but is now Comcast, and my cellphone service is through Verison and I haven't had any trouble with either service.
FalconI'll do even better and stick to the topic by pointing you towards two projects that provide municipal FTTH. Both projects prompted the telcos, to call the state legislature and attempt to legislate these projects out of existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IProvo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTOPIA
Ah, Wiki has an entry on UTOPIA. I read about it in the IEEE's Spectrum magazine, A Broadband Utopia
FalconWhile I normally consider myself pretty far to the Right on the economic scale, I think there are certainly some areas where there are bona fide public interests, and where government is the most capable agency of completing a project (or is the only one you'd want to own and monopolize the finished product); in these areas it doesn't make sense to not do it within the public sector.
I'm the same, though I am libertarian and believe in freedom including economic freedom I also believe local communities and governments should be the ones that own the local infrastruture. Otherwise you end up with government granted monopolies.
FalconI can count the number of fabulous free-internet-for-everybody on .... no fingers of one hand.
Where in the world does "free" access come from? TFA does not use the word "free" once. However Google and Earthlink, both for profit businesses, are setting up wireless broadband access in San Francisco. The two companies are setting up a wireless mesh wherein businesses and residences can signup for a free Meraki wireless router, and can buy a range extender for $50, to join the network. The free basic service is capable of download speeds of around 1Mbps, and there's a paid for service that offers faster speeds. If profitable businesses can offer free service what prevents governments from doing the same? That is other than said governemnt services make it harder for a business to enter the market if they wanted. However they don't want to do otherwise they step up to the plate and setup a network like Earthlink and Google are doing.
Falcon