but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
You do understand that this situation was created by state and local politicians/regulators, not the federal government. If everyone, in say, Ohio, wants to eliminate "cable monopolies on broadband internet" they need simply petition their local politicians.
Of course, you allowed the monopolies to be created to encourage comprehensive build-outs by removing competition, so removing the monopolies will leave unprofitable regions of the state under or un-served while competition abounds in the more densely populated and more affluent areas enjoy the fruits of the competition you encouraged.
The answer is wireless broadband, which is typically exempt from existing monopoly agreements with telcos/cable companies, but the roll-out cost is prohibitive.
telcos that were already paid to build out their networks by the taxpayers
Please explain how you imagine the "taxpayer" directly paid telcos to "build out their networks"...
Some telcos were/are given cash subsidies, collected as fees from telephone subscribers by the federal government to improve coverage and off-set increased operating costs in under-served rural areas, which represent a small percentage of the telephone network.
"Telco subscribers" is no the same thing as "taxpayers" (but there is a lot of overlap between the two).
Telcos were able to deduct the business expense of building-out their infrastructure as a normal business expense, just as a manufacturer can deduct the expense of a new piece of plant machinery, or an internet start-up can deduct the cost of their servers, or a corner pizzeria can deduct the expense of their new pizza oven.
The "taxpayer" did not directly fund the Telco networks, anymore than the taxpayers directly funded your employer's IT upgrade last year.
through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters.
"invisible" - The only radio airwaves that are visible are referred to as "light waves".
"wireless radio airwaves" - Redundant? Is there such a thing as "wired radio airwaves"?
"aren't already owned by broadcasters" - That is the vast, vast majority of the radio spectrum, "broadcasters" control just a small fraction of the radio spectrum.
Nice attempt at spin, but it still shows that signiificantly less people will buy one without subsidies.
No it doesn't. [It] shows that when given the choice between subsidy and no subsidy, everyone choses subsidy. Next year's sales will show whether or not they'll buy it without subsidy.
or, put another way, "significantly fewer people choose to buy the Tesla without subsidy"...
it varies substantially by state. 24 states require net metering to be paid at retail. All the rest pay less than the retail rate, and in three states, utilities are not required to offer net metering at all.
Forcing a consumer, in this case the utility company, to pay a price greater than wholesale for something I s, by definition, forcing the consumer to pay a premium for it.
Retail = rate consumers pay for electricity Wholesale = rate costs utility to produce electricity Premium = rate greater than wholesale
That is not the 'oil subsidies' people like to argue against - they are talking about Oil Companies (Exxon/Mobil, Shell, etc), and Oil Companies do not receive subsidies that are paid to their CUSTOMERS, the power plant operators.
because we can afford to take care of people even if their health problems are their fault.
So by afford, do you mean ration?
As the need for more and ever more expensive medical care is needed by your citizens, do taxes increase to cover it, or does the care provided become more scarce?
The poster child for socialized medicine (NHS in UK) is constantly having money issues and our neighbors to the north have been known to have scarcity issues, ranging from procedures to even basic access to physicians.
It's not voluntary, it only looks voluntary. We've largely stopped funding higher education
I challenge the assertion that we 'largely stopped funding higher education', I think the money spent has gone up year after year every year the past 50 or so years.
Remember when an HS diploma meant you could read and write at a 12th grade level? Now a too-large majority of college students require multiple remedial classes their freshman years in math/English.
Wouldn't take much, (an act of Congress would do it,) to reimpose a draft. There's one senator, (forget his name,) who puts up a bill to do just that, every year.
It's a congressman, Charlie Rangel, and he does it because he thinks analysis volunteer army is racist.
Remember when 'an act of congress' used to mean something WAS a big deal, apparently to you it's a trivial accomplishment...
As to abortion, you have no fucking idea, how bad it is when your baby might have to be aborted, and you're scrambling around to find money for the amniocentisis tests. What was my wife supposed to do if we couldn't afford the abortion? Carry it to term and let it die after birth? Fuck you, you selfish asshole.
So we have to pay for everyone's elective abortions because your wife needed a medically-necessary abortion?
Decent health insurance would have covered a doctor-prescribed abortion for medical reasons, even long before obama even ran for office, let alone implemented Obamacare.
So you have an entire roadway that has a forced capacity of 3 travellers. You remove this limit and people are not forced to travel together and at the same time. The expected result would be more traffic over a broader period therefore increasing congestion and travel times.
It's not clear that a study based on HOV with 3+ occupants would be relevant to cities with a 2+ occupant HOV.
Also, we aren't talking about HOV lanes in a roadway, we are talking about the entire roadway being HOV - with fewer than three occupants, the car may not travel on the "main road" at all.
The additional weight in the vehicle burns more gas but you get where you want to go faster so it's probably worth it even to poor Indonesians.
Run the numbers, the math is straight-forward.
If one person in a car travelling a certain distance consumes "x" amount of gasoline, will three people in one car travelling the same distance consume 3x the amount of gasoline or some amount less? Common sense tells us less, and that saved fuel, which in turn results in less greenhouse gasses being generated is the motivation for car pool lanes. Faster travel time is the incentive to car pool.
EXCEPT this story isn't about car pool LANES, it is about car pool ROADS, where you were prohibited from driving on the road with fewer than three passengers in the car.
The law had required cars driving on the business district's main roads to carry at least three passengers during rush hours.
The gov't eliminated the requirement that ALL cars driving on certain roads needed to carry 3 or more passengers, it didn't remove carpool lanes along those roads.
Under the old law EVERY CAR on certain roads were required to carry at least three passengers, cars with fewer passengers were prohibited. Once the "three or more" requirement was lifted, the streets in question were, as one would reasonably expect, flooded with more cars.
Slashdot Mirror
but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
You do understand that this situation was created by state and local politicians/regulators, not the federal government. If everyone, in say, Ohio, wants to eliminate "cable monopolies on broadband internet" they need simply petition their local politicians.
Of course, you allowed the monopolies to be created to encourage comprehensive build-outs by removing competition, so removing the monopolies will leave unprofitable regions of the state under or un-served while competition abounds in the more densely populated and more affluent areas enjoy the fruits of the competition you encouraged.
The answer is wireless broadband, which is typically exempt from existing monopoly agreements with telcos/cable companies, but the roll-out cost is prohibitive.
telcos that were already paid to build out their networks by the taxpayers
Please explain how you imagine the "taxpayer" directly paid telcos to "build out their networks"...
Some telcos were/are given cash subsidies, collected as fees from telephone subscribers by the federal government to improve coverage and off-set increased operating costs in under-served rural areas, which represent a small percentage of the telephone network.
"Telco subscribers" is no the same thing as "taxpayers" (but there is a lot of overlap between the two).
Telcos were able to deduct the business expense of building-out their infrastructure as a normal business expense, just as a manufacturer can deduct the expense of a new piece of plant machinery, or an internet start-up can deduct the cost of their servers, or a corner pizzeria can deduct the expense of their new pizza oven.
The "taxpayer" did not directly fund the Telco networks, anymore than the taxpayers directly funded your employer's IT upgrade last year.
You must be new to Slashdot.
through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters.
"invisible" - The only radio airwaves that are visible are referred to as "light waves".
"wireless radio airwaves" - Redundant? Is there such a thing as "wired radio airwaves"?
"aren't already owned by broadcasters" - That is the vast, vast majority of the radio spectrum, "broadcasters" control just a small fraction of the radio spectrum.
This plan is to allocate and dedicate one unused UHF Broadcast TV channel in each market for high-speed data transmission. So this proposed service, which broadcasters object to, would be located in the midst of spectrum controlled by TV broadcasters
I'm sure sales will pick up again in a couple month
Sure, just as soon as everyone forgets it's $75K car they are paying $130K for...
Nice attempt at spin, but it still shows that signiificantly less people will buy one without subsidies.
No it doesn't. [It] shows that when given the choice between subsidy and no subsidy, everyone choses subsidy.
Next year's sales will show whether or not they'll buy it without subsidy.
or, put another way, "significantly fewer people choose to buy the Tesla without subsidy"...
it varies substantially by state. 24 states require net metering to be paid at retail. All the rest pay less than the retail rate, and in three states, utilities are not required to offer net metering at all.
Forcing a consumer, in this case the utility company, to pay a price greater than wholesale for something I s, by definition, forcing the consumer to pay a premium for it.
Retail = rate consumers pay for electricity
Wholesale = rate costs utility to produce electricity
Premium = rate greater than wholesale
You can't engineer a new earth. We need to raise awareness so we don't destroy the one we have.
FTFY also...
They are talking about natgas plants not solar.
That is not the 'oil subsidies' people like to argue against - they are talking about Oil Companies (Exxon/Mobil, Shell, etc), and Oil Companies do not receive subsidies that are paid to their CUSTOMERS, the power plant operators.
Really? T's unconstitutional to require contract disputes to be handled via arbitration?
Which constitution are we talking about? Care to point that out to me?
My right to own a gun doesn't obligate anyone to provide me one at a price I can afford.
My right to free speech doesn't obligate the local TV station to give me air time.
I really would have hoped that came up in your high school civics class.
No problem, it happens.
because we can afford to take care of people even if their health problems are their fault.
So by afford, do you mean ration?
As the need for more and ever more expensive medical care is needed by your citizens, do taxes increase to cover it, or does the care provided become more scarce?
The poster child for socialized medicine (NHS in UK) is constantly having money issues and our neighbors to the north have been known to have scarcity issues, ranging from procedures to even basic access to physicians.
It's not voluntary, it only looks voluntary. We've largely stopped funding higher education
I challenge the assertion that we 'largely stopped funding higher education', I think the money spent has gone up year after year every year the past 50 or so years.
Remember when an HS diploma meant you could read and write at a 12th grade level? Now a too-large majority of college students require multiple remedial classes their freshman years in math/English.
Wouldn't take much, (an act of Congress would do it,) to reimpose a draft. There's one senator, (forget his name,) who puts up a bill to do just that, every year.
It's a congressman, Charlie Rangel, and he does it because he thinks analysis volunteer army is racist.
Remember when 'an act of congress' used to mean something WAS a big deal, apparently to you it's a trivial accomplishment...
God what a stupid argument.
As to abortion, you have no fucking idea, how bad it is when your baby might have to be aborted, and you're scrambling around to find money for the amniocentisis tests. What was my wife supposed to do if we couldn't afford the abortion? Carry it to term and let it die after birth? Fuck you, you selfish asshole.
So we have to pay for everyone's elective abortions because your wife needed a medically-necessary abortion?
Decent health insurance would have covered a doctor-prescribed abortion for medical reasons, even long before obama even ran for office, let alone implemented Obamacare.
What is the law regarding smoking? Great, folks under 21 can't buy cigarettes, what is the law regarding consumption?
The entire roadway was HOV, less than three passengers and you are forbidden to travel on that road.
The article is not about a single lane of the road being HOV...
So you have an entire roadway that has a forced capacity of 3 travellers. You remove this limit and people are not forced to travel together and at the same time. The expected result would be more traffic over a broader period therefore increasing congestion and travel times.
FTFY
It's not clear that a study based on HOV with 3+ occupants would be relevant to cities with a 2+ occupant HOV.
Also, we aren't talking about HOV lanes in a roadway, we are talking about the entire roadway being HOV - with fewer than three occupants, the car may not travel on the "main road" at all.
Unless you're well-heeled, they want you to suffer.
Or, they want to recoup the investment in adding the lanes to the road...
(i.e. people being paid to be passengers, so drivers can get over the limit to be able to use carpool lanes)
Except these aren't "carpool lanes", they are carpool ROADS - you couldn't drive on the road unless you had two other passengers along for the ride.
The additional weight in the vehicle burns more gas but you get where you want to go faster so it's probably worth it even to poor Indonesians.
Run the numbers, the math is straight-forward.
If one person in a car travelling a certain distance consumes "x" amount of gasoline, will three people in one car travelling the same distance consume 3x the amount of gasoline or some amount less? Common sense tells us less, and that saved fuel, which in turn results in less greenhouse gasses being generated is the motivation for car pool lanes. Faster travel time is the incentive to car pool.
EXCEPT this story isn't about car pool LANES, it is about car pool ROADS, where you were prohibited from driving on the road with fewer than three passengers in the car.
The law had required cars driving on the business district's main roads to carry at least three passengers during rush hours.
The gov't eliminated the requirement that ALL cars driving on certain roads needed to carry 3 or more passengers, it didn't remove carpool lanes along those roads.
Under the old law EVERY CAR on certain roads were required to carry at least three passengers, cars with fewer passengers were prohibited. Once the "three or more" requirement was lifted, the streets in question were, as one would reasonably expect, flooded with more cars.