Well, Doubleclick wouldn't lie about anything, now would they? Especially not to the government... aren't they bound by the Advertisers' Code of Ethics? We can trust them...
One thing to mention... when I was in college, I had a professor of history who said that when she arrived in the US from India, she was amazed to see that the reins of power were calmly, peacefully handed over every four years, with no revolutions, etc., until she realized that they really don't change hands. If you think about other countries, she's right. The power shifts back and forth between two groups who are basically centrists.
I think perhaps the immigration controls will be tightened somewhat (less H1B visas, etc.) in a raw display of power. Other than that, I don't see any drastic changes, mostly because they would negatively affect the economy, which would forevermore be labelled George W. Bush's fault.
I trust my local telephone company. In my life, I've never been without telephone service. I'm serious. There was a tornado nearby once, and the power(and cable access) was out for nearly a day - but we still had our phones.
Point conceded. Phones tend to be more reliable during disasters (though this does vary based on your location.
I've witnessed dozens of cable outages. While generally short(usually around an hour), a few have lasted upwards of a day or two.
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I have had no cable outages since I got cable in 1986, save for when power was out to the distribution centre, which didn't matter because it was out for me as well. Phones, however, I have seen be out for extended periods due to emergency maintenance (this was before they were buried underground).
In most parts of Canada, you need to pay an extra 10-15 dollars(Canadian) to get 60 channels. Regular service has about 30-40. I think the most you can actually get(no matter how much money you have), short of getting a satellite dish, is about 75 or a hundred.
Here in the U.S. (specifically metropolitan Southern California), you pay an extra $5 for the extra channels, and then (if available) an extra $5 for the digital tier (which, if you have premium channels, greatly increases the number of available channels).
I don't know anyone who has a long-term cable contract. It's always monthly.
Municipalities generally contract out with one cable provider to provide cable for the residents of the city. Residents pay monthly; the contract length between the municipality and the cable provider varies but averages around 3-5 years. When the contract is up, the cable provider and and of their competitors may petition for consideration for the new contract.
Well, I've got news:) Up until about five years ago, there was only ONE telephone carrier available in my area. And they were just fine:) No serious problems, technicians always made it out when they said they would(although, sometimes[if it wasn't a serious problem], you'd have to wait a few days). Perfectly well-behaved.
The point? Don't bash the technology because the people who are initially using it arn't the nicest people in the world. If this makes it into my city before cable broadband access does, I'll sign up for it.
You've been very lucky, then, and it seems like Ontario would be a good place to be if you wanted good phone service. Here, unfortunately, you have your choice between the unwilling ("I hate my job"), the incapable ("Um. I can't fix this right now even though you waited six hours for me. My supervisor can come out a week from Tuesday"), or the simply missing ("WHERE IS MY PHONE TECH?"). Mostly it's simple cluelessness and an amazing lack of initiative that would make any geek blanch with horror.
As for bashing the technology, it seems like the bandwidth used to provide this should be put toward the improvement of the signals already carried on the line, i.e., DSL and voice. I agree that any development which results in a choice improves the market, but support is an integral part of that choice, and Joe Shmo who isn't a geek needs to have at least reasonable support.
Well, surprise, surprise. After the cable companies found out that they could carry Net access over their lines, I'm not surprised at this retaliation. But let's look at it:
1) Very few people trust their local telco. I certainly don't trust them even with DSL, let alone with cable access.
2) When was the last time a cable system in a big city (where the rollout would probably start, as it usually does) was economically viable with only 60 channels?
3) Think about the cable signal over copper lines. If you're in an area with fibre optics, great. But if not, your cable reception could be evil.
4) 95% (at least) of all municipalities that have cable available for residents have a long term contract in place. To switch to a telco for this would require some nifty sidestepping of issues.
5) Imagine cable support through your telco. Not to pick on my unnamed local telco which starts with V and ends in N and has a giant gaping intelligence gap between, but they can't even support DSL, and they're just barely able to offer what might be considered reasonable service for their phone lines.
I don't see a great amount of competition for $CABLE_PROVIDER in the near future.
In the absence of such scintillating new TLDs as.sex,.www,.web, and.now, certain buses in Santa Monica and Los Angeles, CA are now advertising.la domains (.la is a country-specific TLD for Laos, in Southeast Asia.) Amazingly, not very many people have bothered. I see several.tv domains, but the only thing I see advertised with a.la TLD is the registrar itself.
I don't see the use of alternative TLDs really taking off until Joe "AOL User" Shmo is a little better versed in the workings of the Internet.
Contrary to what those in other sections of the world may think (what? you don't keep up with everything that happens in California? why not?), this is not exactly a new topic.
It comes down to, essentially, a truly awful economic decision and a great deal of FUD spread by (who else?) the power companies and the media.
Deregulation started in 1995, when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in San Francisco started studying the possibility. Other states (most notably New Jersey/Delaware/Pennsylvania/Maryland, which forms one power region) had managed to successfully deregulate power, so California figured it was a Good Thing (TM).
The bad economics come in when you realize that it was only the wholesale market that was deregulated, but that Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were under a CPUC-imposed rate freeze, which meant they could not raise their rates.
Added to this was a requirement that Edison, at least (I'm not sure about PG&E), was forced to divest itself of its power plants. These power plants were bought up by companies that were essentially startups. The new generators of electricity raised the price of electricity, and SCE and PG&E were stuck.
It amounts to a larger version of the rent control in my hometown of Santa Monica - costs may rise but the end-users pay a fixed rate set by the government.
An interesting side note for those who care to research further - San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) was under no such rate freeze, and prices, predictably, tripled this summer. SDG&E, you notice, is not facing bankruptcy, because they are free to raise their rates.
As for the environmental "cartel" whining about nuclear power, it was my last knowledge that both Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant north of San Luis Obispo and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS, aka "the iron tits" due to their unfortunate shape) were both running (with some exceptions due to kelp in the intake at DCNPP).
The cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale, Riverside, and San Bernadino (among others) are NOT affected, no matter what FUD you may see in the national media, because they have municipal utilities which have long-term contracts and were never regulated (the CPUC has no authority over municipal utilities).
You can check the status of the grid at the California Independent System Operator's website, but it may be down (slashdotted without ever being posted on slashdot, imagine!)
We have had no rotating outages yet. Let's hope the broken system gets fixed soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Doubleclick wouldn't lie about anything, now would they? Especially not to the government... aren't they bound by the Advertisers' Code of Ethics? We can trust them...
One thing to mention... when I was in college, I had a professor of history who said that when she arrived in the US from India, she was amazed to see that the reins of power were calmly, peacefully handed over every four years, with no revolutions, etc., until she realized that they really don't change hands. If you think about other countries, she's right. The power shifts back and forth between two groups who are basically centrists.
I think perhaps the immigration controls will be tightened somewhat (less H1B visas, etc.) in a raw display of power. Other than that, I don't see any drastic changes, mostly because they would negatively affect the economy, which would forevermore be labelled George W. Bush's fault.
Just my $0.02.
I trust my local telephone company. In my life, I've never been without telephone service. I'm serious. There was a tornado nearby once, and the power(and cable access) was out for nearly a day - but we still had our phones.
Point conceded. Phones tend to be more reliable during disasters (though this does vary based on your location.
I've witnessed dozens of cable outages. While generally short(usually around an hour), a few have lasted upwards of a day or two.
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I have had no cable outages since I got cable in 1986, save for when power was out to the distribution centre, which didn't matter because it was out for me as well. Phones, however, I have seen be out for extended periods due to emergency maintenance (this was before they were buried underground).
In most parts of Canada, you need to pay an extra 10-15 dollars(Canadian) to get 60 channels. Regular service has about 30-40. I think the most you can actually get(no matter how much money you have), short of getting a satellite dish, is about 75 or a hundred.
Here in the U.S. (specifically metropolitan Southern California), you pay an extra $5 for the extra channels, and then (if available) an extra $5 for the digital tier (which, if you have premium channels, greatly increases the number of available channels).
I don't know anyone who has a long-term cable contract. It's always monthly.
Municipalities generally contract out with one cable provider to provide cable for the residents of the city. Residents pay monthly; the contract length between the municipality and the cable provider varies but averages around 3-5 years. When the contract is up, the cable provider and and of their competitors may petition for consideration for the new contract.
Well, I've got news :) Up until about five years ago, there was only ONE telephone carrier available in my area. And they were just fine :) No serious problems, technicians always made it out when they said they would(although, sometimes[if it wasn't a serious problem], you'd have to wait a few days). Perfectly well-behaved.
The point? Don't bash the technology because the people who are initially using it arn't the nicest people in the world. If this makes it into my city before cable broadband access does, I'll sign up for it.
You've been very lucky, then, and it seems like Ontario would be a good place to be if you wanted good phone service. Here, unfortunately, you have your choice between the unwilling ("I hate my job"), the incapable ("Um. I can't fix this right now even though you waited six hours for me. My supervisor can come out a week from Tuesday"), or the simply missing ("WHERE IS MY PHONE TECH?"). Mostly it's simple cluelessness and an amazing lack of initiative that would make any geek blanch with horror.
As for bashing the technology, it seems like the bandwidth used to provide this should be put toward the improvement of the signals already carried on the line, i.e., DSL and voice. I agree that any development which results in a choice improves the market, but support is an integral part of that choice, and Joe Shmo who isn't a geek needs to have at least reasonable support.
Thanks for your examples and the courteous reply.
Well, surprise, surprise. After the cable companies found out that they could carry Net access over their lines, I'm not surprised at this retaliation. But let's look at it: 1) Very few people trust their local telco. I certainly don't trust them even with DSL, let alone with cable access. 2) When was the last time a cable system in a big city (where the rollout would probably start, as it usually does) was economically viable with only 60 channels? 3) Think about the cable signal over copper lines. If you're in an area with fibre optics, great. But if not, your cable reception could be evil. 4) 95% (at least) of all municipalities that have cable available for residents have a long term contract in place. To switch to a telco for this would require some nifty sidestepping of issues. 5) Imagine cable support through your telco. Not to pick on my unnamed local telco which starts with V and ends in N and has a giant gaping intelligence gap between, but they can't even support DSL, and they're just barely able to offer what might be considered reasonable service for their phone lines. I don't see a great amount of competition for $CABLE_PROVIDER in the near future.
In the absence of such scintillating new TLDs as .sex, .www, .web, and .now, certain buses in Santa Monica and Los Angeles, CA are now advertising .la domains (.la is a country-specific TLD for Laos, in Southeast Asia.) Amazingly, not very many people have bothered. I see several .tv domains, but the only thing I see advertised with a .la TLD is the registrar itself.
I don't see the use of alternative TLDs really taking off until Joe "AOL User" Shmo is a little better versed in the workings of the Internet.
Just my 34 lira...
Contrary to what those in other sections of the world may think (what? you don't keep up with everything that happens in California? why not?), this is not exactly a new topic.
It comes down to, essentially, a truly awful economic decision and a great deal of FUD spread by (who else?) the power companies and the media.
Deregulation started in 1995, when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in San Francisco started studying the possibility. Other states (most notably New Jersey/Delaware/Pennsylvania/Maryland, which forms one power region) had managed to successfully deregulate power, so California figured it was a Good Thing (TM).
The bad economics come in when you realize that it was only the wholesale market that was deregulated, but that Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were under a CPUC-imposed rate freeze, which meant they could not raise their rates.
Added to this was a requirement that Edison, at least (I'm not sure about PG&E), was forced to divest itself of its power plants. These power plants were bought up by companies that were essentially startups. The new generators of electricity raised the price of electricity, and SCE and PG&E were stuck.
It amounts to a larger version of the rent control in my hometown of Santa Monica - costs may rise but the end-users pay a fixed rate set by the government.
An interesting side note for those who care to research further - San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) was under no such rate freeze, and prices, predictably, tripled this summer. SDG&E, you notice, is not facing bankruptcy, because they are free to raise their rates.
As for the environmental "cartel" whining about nuclear power, it was my last knowledge that both Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant north of San Luis Obispo and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS, aka "the iron tits" due to their unfortunate shape) were both running (with some exceptions due to kelp in the intake at DCNPP).
The cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale, Riverside, and San Bernadino (among others) are NOT affected, no matter what FUD you may see in the national media, because they have municipal utilities which have long-term contracts and were never regulated (the CPUC has no authority over municipal utilities).
You can check the status of the grid at the California Independent System Operator's website, but it may be down (slashdotted without ever being posted on slashdot, imagine!) We have had no rotating outages yet. Let's hope the broken system gets fixed soon.