A lot of MBA people are nerds, but they are nerds who can socialize better than a lot of nerds. You could define them as business nerds, these are the people who get passionate about Ron Paul, or when you complain about something they have to go on and one about value creation or strategy.
These people are (using your terminology) hip to business / marketing / economics / accounting, but only cool to their business nerd counterparts.
A lot of the people I am studying an MBA with do not fit this business nerd profile.
Here's an easy way to spot one: I went to Sexpo (A Sex Expo) with a bunch of friends and we're walking around and there are hot girls everywhere getting your attention, lots of stands and crazy/interesting things.
The business nerd in this group noticed a sign across the room saying "regulation", "prostitution" and similar. So I said "Awesome!" and rushed over to the stall that everyone else was going around, because I wanted to argue economics, strategy, politics and similar with the prostitution lobby (which for your information, got a sever talking to by me for not knowing much about lobbying!).
So I would say there are geek sub cultures, some of which don't seem "traditionally" geeky, but when applied by geeks, results in a geeky subculture.
The 2 main geek subcultures I prescribe to are:
Business geeks (We get into the economics, strategy and marketing heaps)
Car geeks (We get into the physics, design and development heaps)
Out of both of these we fit your definition of being hip without being recognizably cool. Most people who are "into" cars don't want to discuss the physics of it, and most people who are "into" business do not want to discuss economics, strategy and marketing outside of the realm of their position/etc.
As far as I can see, the rampant and excepted piracy which is so prevailent throughout Australia, and has been for years, is forcing Microsoft, ISPs and similar to be far more competitive than previously.
For instance most students pirate the tools they need to study, so Microsoft released the "It's Not Cheating Sale" which happens every year and they sell Office Ultimate for $75 AUD. I haven't heard of this sort of thing happening in any other market, where the sale wasn't linked to buyers with huge buying power (Eg. Dell).
I believe the primary difference is Australia's pirating "tradition", since even in the early days of software piracy here has been rampant and a part of every day life.
The "price" column is misleading especially for Australia. For instance if you compare the LOWEST monthly price this is a capped download limit plan which allows you to download 500meg. Sure this is the lowest cost, however most people can't survive on it, and it doesn't account for anyone else.
For instance, me and my friends are all nerds with reasonably heavy usage habits. This means we use 80gb per month, which is basically the largest limits you can get.
These plans cost $100+ AUD and we on average get 5mbit. This means our price column there would be 20 and the highest value possible on this chart.
Taking the average download limit of 20gb per month for $55 (on my ISP) and 5mbit means I would get a score of 11, which is still above average since most people don't have or don't get 5mbit. If we take their average of 1.7mbit we get a score of 32.35 which is more accurate.
The reason why most of our country is on 1.5mbit, is that you can download more than your cap on 1.5mbit so you usually don't need more. Also, the infrastructure wasn't there till this past year.
Anyhow, at least with Australia, our score needs to be a lot lower.
Of course, you make a good point. Although the article states they will be looking for private financing, all of those financiers will live in that geographically limited area, and they could not benefit in the slightest by raising their public profile. Hell, if something like this worked, then you'd have more people doing it, and they'd probably call them Public Relations people, then abbreviate it to something easy to say like PR. Then those fictitious people would probably create "campaigns".
But we're smarter than that, aren't we?
Please note the sarcasm and mockery contained above. It's hard to convey exactly how much I am mocking you and your post at the moment.
Really... you couldn't see any other reason why they would want to advertise their service? Really?
Haha, excellent point. I don't bring up Telstra because people in other countries wouldn't have enough interest in it to consider that example.
Why was Telecom setup? To provide infrastructure for the people and businesses so that they can benefit. This was rationalized since it costs to much and we are so spread out here, that it isn't economic.
So it was done, however then the costs were too much for a lot of people to bare, so there was slow uptake with the service. Additionally, once there was uptake the service to some areas was pathetic.
Then after the service started to be reasonable and for a decent price, the service fell into obsolescence and people needed more.
Then the service became privatized which has its pains, but it still isn't deregulated, and it hasn't been long enough for the industry to normalize.
Now that Telstra is privatized, they are only screwing themselves by providing a shitty service. Give it time, and more companies will come, and it will be better.
But we still need to deregulate for this to happen faster, and with less repercussions.
As with everything else the government does (except when people cheat on the process which is another problem entirely), the lowest bidder.
How much should be paid to do this contract?
Whatever the lowest bid ends up being.
Now, offering a bid to cover large segments especially rural is highly subjective. How do you know the lowest bid will return the quality you require?
Now, if you pay more for better quality, how do you know you're paying the lowest cost possible for that quality?
Should everyone get it or only dense populations? How dense do the populations have to be?
Everyone should get it. If you live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, it's likely to take a while more, but it's not like the government didn't do this before when it subsidized power and phone lines to those people.
So everyone gets it. How are the costs spread, are they spread evenly amongst the users? What is the cost to the companies using the infrastructure? Are they more for rural access? How are these costs passed on to their customers, will they make rural costs higher, or will they raise their costs for all of their customers equally at the risk of being uncompetitive? Does the company operating only in New York pay for the network upgrades in California?
How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
The government should borrow money with future taxes as collateral (whenever this is done, very low interest rates can be worked out, because it's very low risk debt). Then a tax should be introduced on people who subscribe to the fiber, so that nobody else has to pay.
So you would advocate inflating your currency more, even through a recession? Would like your country to take on more debt which will reduce the buying power and earning power for a lot of people?
Who gets to use the fiber?
Every single company that has a business plan and can prove they have the capital to implement it.
So how is physical access to the network awarded? Does every company get equal physical access? What about people who pay for better service, do their packets get prioritized? If not, what about mission critical services for business? If one company is using too much of the network in comparison to the others, what incentive do they have to scale down usage? Should the cost increase for them? What you create is a tragedy of the commons situation.
How much do we charge companies to use this fiber?
Nothing. Users of the fibers are getting taxed on the bill already. Those companies will pay their other corporate taxes for running a business.
What incentive is there for people to not download so much it restricts other peoples usage? What incentive do companies have to not buy their own infrastructure and then undertake services which use so much bandwidth that other people using the same connection get throttled? What if they need to run like this?
How do we ensure its being used for the right purposes and companies aren't bidding for contacts and locking in those customers?
Same way anti-trust laws are enforced. If there's reason to investigate, start an investigation.
So you would propose a bureaucratic system to oversee and scrutinize the use of the internet? How should their powers be limited? If it's a Government infrastructure it shouldn't be used for anything criminal. So the Government should setup a RIAA and MPAA panel to monitor this service shouldn't it? What about blocking racism and hatred on the internet? Surely the Government can't be seen to be complicit in these activities? See there are farther reaching consequences of these actions
Any long term economic benefits would be mitigated by short term inefficiencies and long term product obsolescence.
As it has been with all of the public services you talked about above.
However since costs are directly passed on to everyone the people who are hit the most from these inefficiencies are the people who don't want to run it, however the people who do want to run it are given above market costs.
Additionally, I think you're trivializing the amount of money required to supply the same service in the cities to rural communities. These costs are immense, and you have quite a large country.
Okay, I'll try frame this in a way you understand.
How much profit should the government company plan to generate?
How much growth should the government company plan for?
If you answer to low on these, you're planning for obsolescence, in which case come to Australia, we have/had this utopia you speak of!
We only saw upgrades and advancement once we got privatised (mostly) the public telephony company.
Everything you guys are bringing up as a "This just might work" has been tried and used in many countries. In fact most smaller countries which did not have the market required for this infrastructure, went this route and are having problems dealing with the consequences.
You can't compare the US to a Government run company, or to a company operating in a free market.
The reason the US has so many problems, is the immense regulation that surrounds this industry which has been rationalized through providing incentive for companies to take on this risk.
Let business do what it does best, without demanding that they conform to crazy regulation designed by people who have no concept of their industry (Senator Ted Stevens?).
What you call a simple economics reality, isn't true.
Repeat after me, "Business is not predatory!"
It is far more expensive to engage in anti-competitive practices (in a free market) than it is to compete through product/production/market superiority.
The main problem with people who aren't Libertarians is that they don't seem to be able to fully understand a system holistically or can't understand Austrian economics.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of MBA people are nerds, but they are nerds who can socialize better than a lot of nerds. You could define them as business nerds, these are the people who get passionate about Ron Paul, or when you complain about something they have to go on and one about value creation or strategy.
These people are (using your terminology) hip to business / marketing / economics / accounting, but only cool to their business nerd counterparts.
A lot of the people I am studying an MBA with do not fit this business nerd profile.
Here's an easy way to spot one:
I went to Sexpo (A Sex Expo) with a bunch of friends and we're walking around and there are hot girls everywhere getting your attention, lots of stands and crazy/interesting things.
The business nerd in this group noticed a sign across the room saying "regulation", "prostitution" and similar. So I said "Awesome!" and rushed over to the stall that everyone else was going around, because I wanted to argue economics, strategy, politics and similar with the prostitution lobby (which for your information, got a sever talking to by me for not knowing much about lobbying!).
So I would say there are geek sub cultures, some of which don't seem "traditionally" geeky, but when applied by geeks, results in a geeky subculture.
The 2 main geek subcultures I prescribe to are:
Business geeks (We get into the economics, strategy and marketing heaps)
Car geeks (We get into the physics, design and development heaps)
Out of both of these we fit your definition of being hip without being recognizably cool. Most people who are "into" cars don't want to discuss the physics of it, and most people who are "into" business do not want to discuss economics, strategy and marketing outside of the realm of their position/etc.
Slashdot, the place to go for free market research from nerds.
Change that 250GB to 80GB, decrease the available speed, increase the price, and you've now got what Australia has!
Enjoy!
As far as I can see, the rampant and excepted piracy which is so prevailent throughout Australia, and has been for years, is forcing Microsoft, ISPs and similar to be far more competitive than previously.
For instance most students pirate the tools they need to study, so Microsoft released the "It's Not Cheating Sale" which happens every year and they sell Office Ultimate for $75 AUD. I haven't heard of this sort of thing happening in any other market, where the sale wasn't linked to buyers with huge buying power (Eg. Dell).
I believe the primary difference is Australia's pirating "tradition", since even in the early days of software piracy here has been rampant and a part of every day life.
Exactly.
They turned me into a newt!
I got better.
The "price" column is misleading especially for Australia. For instance if you compare the LOWEST monthly price this is a capped download limit plan which allows you to download 500meg. Sure this is the lowest cost, however most people can't survive on it, and it doesn't account for anyone else.
For instance, me and my friends are all nerds with reasonably heavy usage habits. This means we use 80gb per month, which is basically the largest limits you can get.
These plans cost $100+ AUD and we on average get 5mbit. This means our price column there would be 20 and the highest value possible on this chart.
Taking the average download limit of 20gb per month for $55 (on my ISP) and 5mbit means I would get a score of 11, which is still above average since most people don't have or don't get 5mbit. If we take their average of 1.7mbit we get a score of 32.35 which is more accurate.
The reason why most of our country is on 1.5mbit, is that you can download more than your cap on 1.5mbit so you usually don't need more. Also, the infrastructure wasn't there till this past year.
Anyhow, at least with Australia, our score needs to be a lot lower.
Of course, you make a good point. Although the article states they will be looking for private financing, all of those financiers will live in that geographically limited area, and they could not benefit in the slightest by raising their public profile. Hell, if something like this worked, then you'd have more people doing it, and they'd probably call them Public Relations people, then abbreviate it to something easy to say like PR. Then those fictitious people would probably create "campaigns".
But we're smarter than that, aren't we?
Please note the sarcasm and mockery contained above. It's hard to convey exactly how much I am mocking you and your post at the moment.
Really... you couldn't see any other reason why they would want to advertise their service? Really?
WOW, they are getting really creative with slashvertisements now a days.
What would we call it? A rose by any other name.
I've never seen "Corner Gas" I live in Australia.
This was just something me and my friends say now and then "Rocket Surgery" and "Brain Science".
However, I will take the credit!
Wow... that's fucked.
Once again, my sig stands true.
Exactly, it's not like it's rocket surgery!
Haha, excellent point. I don't bring up Telstra because people in other countries wouldn't have enough interest in it to consider that example.
Why was Telecom setup? To provide infrastructure for the people and businesses so that they can benefit. This was rationalized since it costs to much and we are so spread out here, that it isn't economic.
So it was done, however then the costs were too much for a lot of people to bare, so there was slow uptake with the service. Additionally, once there was uptake the service to some areas was pathetic.
Then after the service started to be reasonable and for a decent price, the service fell into obsolescence and people needed more.
Then the service became privatized which has its pains, but it still isn't deregulated, and it hasn't been long enough for the industry to normalize.
Now that Telstra is privatized, they are only screwing themselves by providing a shitty service. Give it time, and more companies will come, and it will be better.
But we still need to deregulate for this to happen faster, and with less repercussions.
Who gets the contract to do the fiber?
As with everything else the government does (except when people cheat on the process which is another problem entirely), the lowest bidder.
How much should be paid to do this contract?
Whatever the lowest bid ends up being.
Now, offering a bid to cover large segments especially rural is highly subjective. How do you know the lowest bid will return the quality you require?
Now, if you pay more for better quality, how do you know you're paying the lowest cost possible for that quality?
Should everyone get it or only dense populations? How dense do the populations have to be?
Everyone should get it. If you live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, it's likely to take a while more, but it's not like the government didn't do this before when it subsidized power and phone lines to those people.
So everyone gets it. How are the costs spread, are they spread evenly amongst the users? What is the cost to the companies using the infrastructure? Are they more for rural access? How are these costs passed on to their customers, will they make rural costs higher, or will they raise their costs for all of their customers equally at the risk of being uncompetitive? Does the company operating only in New York pay for the network upgrades in California?
How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
The government should borrow money with future taxes as collateral (whenever this is done, very low interest rates can be worked out, because it's very low risk debt). Then a tax should be introduced on people who subscribe to the fiber, so that nobody else has to pay.
So you would advocate inflating your currency more, even through a recession? Would like your country to take on more debt which will reduce the buying power and earning power for a lot of people?
Who gets to use the fiber?
Every single company that has a business plan and can prove they have the capital to implement it.
So how is physical access to the network awarded? Does every company get equal physical access? What about people who pay for better service, do their packets get prioritized? If not, what about mission critical services for business? If one company is using too much of the network in comparison to the others, what incentive do they have to scale down usage? Should the cost increase for them? What you create is a tragedy of the commons situation.
How much do we charge companies to use this fiber?
Nothing. Users of the fibers are getting taxed on the bill already. Those companies will pay their other corporate taxes for running a business.
What incentive is there for people to not download so much it restricts other peoples usage? What incentive do companies have to not buy their own infrastructure and then undertake services which use so much bandwidth that other people using the same connection get throttled? What if they need to run like this?
How do we ensure its being used for the right purposes and companies aren't bidding for contacts and locking in those customers?
Same way anti-trust laws are enforced. If there's reason to investigate, start an investigation.
So you would propose a bureaucratic system to oversee and scrutinize the use of the internet? How should their powers be limited? If it's a Government infrastructure it shouldn't be used for anything criminal. So the Government should setup a RIAA and MPAA panel to monitor this service shouldn't it? What about blocking racism and hatred on the internet? Surely the Government can't be seen to be complicit in these activities? See there are farther reaching consequences of these actions
My questions are relevant of any company. You obviously don't understand the economics of the issue.
Any long term economic benefits would be mitigated by short term inefficiencies and long term product obsolescence.
As it has been with all of the public services you talked about above.
However since costs are directly passed on to everyone the people who are hit the most from these inefficiencies are the people who don't want to run it, however the people who do want to run it are given above market costs.
Additionally, I think you're trivializing the amount of money required to supply the same service in the cities to rural communities. These costs are immense, and you have quite a large country.
Delicious!
I'd suggest you get it back... because you're never going to get what you want, unless you directly pay for it.
Okay, I'll try frame this in a way you understand.
How much profit should the government company plan to generate?
How much growth should the government company plan for?
If you answer to low on these, you're planning for obsolescence, in which case come to Australia, we have/had this utopia you speak of!
We only saw upgrades and advancement once we got privatised (mostly) the public telephony company.
Everything you guys are bringing up as a "This just might work" has been tried and used in many countries. In fact most smaller countries which did not have the market required for this infrastructure, went this route and are having problems dealing with the consequences.
You can't compare the US to a Government run company, or to a company operating in a free market.
The reason the US has so many problems, is the immense regulation that surrounds this industry which has been rationalized through providing incentive for companies to take on this risk.
Let business do what it does best, without demanding that they conform to crazy regulation designed by people who have no concept of their industry (Senator Ted Stevens?).
What you call a simple economics reality, isn't true.
Repeat after me, "Business is not predatory!"
It is far more expensive to engage in anti-competitive practices (in a free market) than it is to compete through product/production/market superiority.
The main problem with people who aren't Libertarians is that they don't seem to be able to fully understand a system holistically or can't understand Austrian economics.
But it's still a heavily regulated industry.
I'm not for giving them any incentives or regulating, just allow business to do what it's always done, make wealth.
Yep, but lets leave that argument alone.
Rothbard? Mises? Hayek? Friedman (To an extent)?
You've never studied economics before, have you? Or you have and ignored the Austrian School.
What do "back in my day", "old people", "lawns" have to do with people seeding on BitTorrent?