Question is, does a company want to invest billions of dollars to increase bandwidth in these areas to offer 40+mbps speeds to more customers, when the average customer is happy with their $19.95 a month 768k DSL?
Depends. How many of these places actually have offerings higher than 768k DSL, for a reasonable price?
A private corporation would have psent less. Got there faster and done something with it.
[Citation Needed]. This idea that private enterprise is always more efficient, faster, and better than government is just asinine. Case in point: The BBC. Largely considered one of the worlds greatest journalism organizations, and it is a government organization. Compare that to Fox News, which has a lengthy reputation for being purely partisan, and playing fast and loose with facts.
Hello Governor Rendell. Welcome to/. - you liberals are all alike: going round insulting people because you assume we are all idiots. I have an IQ of 135. Implying I am stupid or incapable of researching SCOTUS cases? Flat wrong.
I would say you are, otherwise you wouldn't keep bitching that the FCC and the EPA are illegal, when that's clearly not the case.
Your analogy is retarded. If Congress says, "You are not subject to 'no antennas on roofs", then they can later say, "You are now subject to 'no antennas on roofs' ".
You are the dumbest of the brain dead libertarians if you think for a second that is what's happening. NOBODY IS TRYING TO GET ISPs, OR ANYONE TO WORK FOR FREE. The only people who might be doing something remotely like this are the ISPs themselves, because they're trying to shake down money from websites just to provide the current level of service to end customers that they currently do. You and I would still pay our ISP bill for our bandwidth under net neutrality just like we do now.
If the government has the authority to tell private companies what their networks must carry, they also have the authority to tell them what they cannot carry. Or soon will.
Good thing that's not happening. Instead, the government is just telling the ISPs that they can't discriminate based on source or destination of the traffic. Kinda like phone companies. Or is it fascist that the government forces phone companies to not fuck with phone traffic?
Telling Verizon to actually get off its ass, and deliver the things it promised when it received that money, is not an ex post facto law. Its enforcing the existing promise that Verizon made.
And I'm sure the huge amounts of capital needed to do things like purchase network/switching equipment, tear up roads and lay cables had nothing to do with it, right? Especially when you would have to spend all this money in the face of a competitor who has already paid off most of their equipment costs, and can set their prices to pretty much whatever they want?
If by free, you mean, given grants with my taxes, and allowed the ISPs to use public rights of way without paying for them, all the while still paying my ISP bill, then sure.
It does have a correlation in that, those that are concerned with openness are usually less concerned with UI. That's not what matters to them, and to the people that make open software. And usually, the programmers who build open software, do not have a good sense of design aesthetic. Not really their fault, as they care less about UI/UX than a regular user. People who care about design aesthetic are usually willing to pay more for something that is pleasing to the eye as well as functional.
If someone asks me which smart phone to buy, I give them all the reasons why I don't think they should buy any smart phone right now.
And you've not helped them out at all, so they're going to go to either another geek who will help them out, or just go to the store and ask them.
It's also why you see so many obviously-mistaken opinions even among us.
Yeah, I didn't need to read past this. Just because someone has a different opinion, doesn't mean its "mistaken."
And your whole rant about marketing is equally as stupid. People have found things like these visually appealing since before you were born. Since long before marketing was commonplace. Dismissing all appeal of visual design to a few Madison Avenue suits is completely shitting all over the work that designers have done throughout history.
You may have root access, but you can't put any of the fantastic community builds of Android on there. CyanogenMod on the Droid 2? Never gonna happen.
And how long is Moto going to take to upgrade to Android 2.3? 2.4? You'll be lucky if you get more than one upgrade cycle... and forget upgrading yourself - that bootloader won't let you.
Not everyone cares about these things. You have to accept that some people have different priorities than you. And in a year or so, he may have moved on to another phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Question is, does a company want to invest billions of dollars to increase bandwidth in these areas to offer 40+mbps speeds to more customers, when the average customer is happy with their $19.95 a month 768k DSL?
Depends. How many of these places actually have offerings higher than 768k DSL, for a reasonable price?
A private corporation would have psent less. Got there faster and done something with it.
[Citation Needed]. This idea that private enterprise is always more efficient, faster, and better than government is just asinine. Case in point: The BBC. Largely considered one of the worlds greatest journalism organizations, and it is a government organization. Compare that to Fox News, which has a lengthy reputation for being purely partisan, and playing fast and loose with facts.
Because I have NEVER seen a government do anything other than war well.
The Apollo Space Program says hi.
Hello Governor Rendell. Welcome to /. - you liberals are all alike: going round insulting people because you assume we are all idiots. I have an IQ of 135. Implying I am stupid or incapable of researching SCOTUS cases? Flat wrong.
I would say you are, otherwise you wouldn't keep bitching that the FCC and the EPA are illegal, when that's clearly not the case.
Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996.
Unless those ISPs only allow you to visit sites which are based inside the state, you're wrong.
The FCC has zero authority to regulate lands owned by State Legislatures.
Except you're wrong. That's like saying the EPA doesn't have authority inside the states, and that is completely false.
Care to show where they are not legal?
Your analogy is retarded. If Congress says, "You are not subject to 'no antennas on roofs", then they can later say, "You are now subject to 'no antennas on roofs' ".
Except you weren't granted the authority to make the first decree. The FCC was granted the authority to make their first decree.
The FCC already has authority over land line phone lines. Is it really that much of a stretch to apply that to internet as well?
The commission (and the us congress) has zero authority to regulate lands owned by the Member State Government/legislature.
Care to point this out? And its definitely not in the 10th Amendment. I'm pretty sure the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the entire nation.
You are the dumbest of the brain dead libertarians if you think for a second that is what's happening. NOBODY IS TRYING TO GET ISPs, OR ANYONE TO WORK FOR FREE. The only people who might be doing something remotely like this are the ISPs themselves, because they're trying to shake down money from websites just to provide the current level of service to end customers that they currently do. You and I would still pay our ISP bill for our bandwidth under net neutrality just like we do now.
If the government has the authority to tell private companies what their networks must carry, they also have the authority to tell them what they cannot carry. Or soon will.
Good thing that's not happening. Instead, the government is just telling the ISPs that they can't discriminate based on source or destination of the traffic. Kinda like phone companies. Or is it fascist that the government forces phone companies to not fuck with phone traffic?
Telling Verizon to actually get off its ass, and deliver the things it promised when it received that money, is not an ex post facto law. Its enforcing the existing promise that Verizon made.
And I'm sure the huge amounts of capital needed to do things like purchase network/switching equipment, tear up roads and lay cables had nothing to do with it, right? Especially when you would have to spend all this money in the face of a competitor who has already paid off most of their equipment costs, and can set their prices to pretty much whatever they want?
You're an idiot if you don't think environmental concerns aren't a national problem, if not a global one.
Unless you want your hometown to look like a Chinese industrial city, no, no you don't.
No, but the Government should be setting the ground rules, and then playing referee. Ensuring a level playing field, and all that.
If by free, you mean, given grants with my taxes, and allowed the ISPs to use public rights of way without paying for them, all the while still paying my ISP bill, then sure.
So Say We All!
It does have a correlation in that, those that are concerned with openness are usually less concerned with UI. That's not what matters to them, and to the people that make open software. And usually, the programmers who build open software, do not have a good sense of design aesthetic. Not really their fault, as they care less about UI/UX than a regular user. People who care about design aesthetic are usually willing to pay more for something that is pleasing to the eye as well as functional.
If someone asks me which smart phone to buy, I give them all the reasons why I don't think they should buy any smart phone right now.
And you've not helped them out at all, so they're going to go to either another geek who will help them out, or just go to the store and ask them.
It's also why you see so many obviously-mistaken opinions even among us.
Yeah, I didn't need to read past this. Just because someone has a different opinion, doesn't mean its "mistaken."
And your whole rant about marketing is equally as stupid. People have found things like these visually appealing since before you were born. Since long before marketing was commonplace. Dismissing all appeal of visual design to a few Madison Avenue suits is completely shitting all over the work that designers have done throughout history.
You talk a lot about rights. But you forget, one of the rights he has, is the right not to exercise or care about those rights.
You may have root access, but you can't put any of the fantastic community builds of Android on there. CyanogenMod on the Droid 2? Never gonna happen.
And how long is Moto going to take to upgrade to Android 2.3? 2.4? You'll be lucky if you get more than one upgrade cycle... and forget upgrading yourself - that bootloader won't let you.
Not everyone cares about these things. You have to accept that some people have different priorities than you. And in a year or so, he may have moved on to another phone.