"ELF_C_..." - each of these is the name of a type in C. I don't see how this is even a bit creative. I had a very similar enum in a program I wrote, except with data types from a 3D engine. My guess is that ELF_C means it would be the ELF binary format's C data type. Nothing to see here.
"ELF_K/ELF_T" - It says in the open source one that these are descriptors as well. More or less the same; universal concepts if you're going to be programming a C compiler. I bet you can find an enum just like this in visual C++.
Hmm... beyond the headings, that's really all that is in that file. If you really have been a programmer for 20 years, you have without question violated thousands of copyrights... if that file does.
More news about imaginary property. How much time and money does our society waste on propping up this outdated concept that you can own an idea? "#include " constitutes copy and pasting? I guess every program on earth violates the copyright of the guy who first wrote "int main(", and whoever started the convention of naming C++ files cpp or cxx should be hiring a lawyer about now. Money is to be made.
"I want a job that pays so well I will never need to work again."
Care to explain why society needs to bend itself to that desire?
"Lowering the barrier to entry does not produce more good works. Anyone reading slashdot in the first world could score a free or almost free computer and a text editor. Would having access to that system result in some good books being written? Probably not."
What planet are you on? We have had a ton of smaller scale books, often published only online, in recent years. That's not even counting the things which aren't actually books, but are very close. For example, web comics like MSPA, which would never have existed before computers.
"Enough gear to produce a CD, or to make a movie? It is out there, and cheap too. Doesn't mean that people, even those with talent, are going to stop what they're doing to pay the bills to crank out some good material."
Making a movie does not mean making one which will be taken seriously. The fact is, being able to buy a professional camera and do some photoshopping of the video does not equal the limitless resources of the MPAA. That's my point. You can buy hardware today which was state of the art 10 years ago, but it doesn't compare today because so much money is being changed hands towards the MPAA, that it takes literally billions to compete. I don't have billions.
"Some people will produce material. But without the shit-filtering function of the labels/networks/studios, how would you hear about anything good?"
By that logic, you shouldn't be using the internet. How do you know what's good without a megacorp monopoly telling you what to consume? Sure, there's Google, but they're not quite the MPAA yet...
"If you knew that you could get it legally, for free in a couple of years, (wait for it to come out on DVD... Wait till it is out on TV... etc arguments) would you be in such a rush to steal it?"
The only way you can steal a movie is to stick it under your shirt and walk out of Walmart with it. Copyright infringement is not theft in a legal OR moral sense. Don't call it that because you have been told "it's close enough" by people with horribly vested interests.
How about those of us who might want to say make a film (I have considered it, I believe I have a solid idea for one), but decided not to because we did not want to support the immoral (frankly evil) oligarchy that is the MPAA? With the money that they rip off from the public and real film-makers alike, it raises the bar of entry for everyone. There is no way that my assembling even a substantial sum of money in support could ever compare with Hollywood movies. Any movie I might make without their blessing would be automatically relegated to being "indie" and seen by a few hippies and maybe show up on an obscure cable channel.
This is one of my major problems with copyright. It centralizes production by progressively making entry more expensive, which leads those in charge of production to try to reinforce copyright further.
Quality is in many ways relative: Star Wars was amazingly realistic when it came out, but its effects are now laughable. Did reality get more realistic, or did the bar get raised? Why do we need more and more expensive movies, which only make it so that the smaller artists have no chance of ever selling their concepts? In 10 years, Avatar will be looked back on and laughed at. And we still will be raising the cost of production for no real reason.
I really have to wonder why people think that [bigger, more expensive] = [better]. I say we abolish copyright and see what happens. If the MPAA closes up shop (they won't), we might take a step backwards for a few years when the money dries up. Then computing will catch up with expectations, and everyone will be able to make a movie along the lines of Avatar if they can convince a few people that their idea is good. There won't be any more billions being sunk into having better effects, so movies will compete on story. Then we'll see true art, not mass produced "movie product."
Don't fear the unknown. We have NEVER attempted a truly copyright-free society with modern technology. I say it's about time we do. Let the dinosaurs die, the future is waiting.
I don't care what the environmentalists say. They have, as you point out, proven themselves incompetent and shortsighted to the level of "drill baby drill". All they care about is feeling good, not the harsh realities of the world.
We need to build nuclear. We need to build nuclear like there is no tomorrow. It's the only way we can continue living in a modern civilization in the coming years. However, that alone will not prevent global warming, the danger which is supported by science and people who are far more intelligent than the "save the trees because I like trees" environmentalists who hate nuclear because it's scary. It also doesn't stop the fact that we still rely on vehicles that are powered by oil and the fact that oil is running out.
We will have to make lifestyle changes like have never been made in history. We will need to stop reproducing exponentially. We will need to give up having the shiny new thing because it is expensive, because we factored in the costs its production had on the future.
It will require sacrifice, but you know what is worse than sacrifice? The collapse of civilization that unchecked global warming and oil shortages threaten, as wars start to control the new lands in the north (hi Canada) and control what little oil is left. That's not pretty. We should be looking at that, not at rising water, as the most probable outcome of our current course of action.
You totally ignore that this will, regardless of whether you like it or not, happen. Oil is going to run out, as will coal. No matter how much you wring your hands about global warming killing cute animals or how evil scientists are for telling you that you can't shit on the world forever, this will happen. Now, the more oil we burn, the LESS oil we have to make things like plastic (which are fairly carbon neutral to HAVE). Where do you get that not burning oil means no plastics? That is utter nonsense.
Yes, hard changes are going to need to be made. These changes are going to happen eventually no matter what we do about global warming. We will need to stop driving so much (or completely), we will need to stop powering our industry with coal, and we will need to stop shipping things from China just because the Chinese work for nothing. You might hate it, but it'll happen.
The sooner we act to deal with this, the LESS money and resources we sink into what we will ultimately throw away and the more we mitigate the chances of geological disaster. Every dollar spent building highways today is being tossed into the trash. It would have been better spent on renewable or nuclear energy, which has a chance of actually allowing us to still drive to some extent, even without oil. But no. Deniers like you stick your heads in the sand, because you want short term luxury, damn the consequences which are as clear as day to anyone with a high-school level education.
Florida possibly under water? Starving and dehydrated Africans? Blowing money on useless investments? Still sending us towards social and economical ruin should by some small chance global warming NOT happen? Get a brain.
You have to make those same changes sooner or later. Coal and oil will not last forever, and they're already getting more expensive to source. You just have the option of stopping NOW and having a minimal risk of cataclysmic climate change, or wait until it runs out and have the risk of losing land. Tell me why we should wait and risk the worst so that you can drive your SUV cheaply for 10 more years.
Stand on your head and whistle Dixie, or your post is irrelevant.
I don't see a particularly well thought out or cited exposition on your stance. Maybe you should practice what you preach.
That said, if you want to see my argument so badly, go back and look at posts I have made before on this very site. They more than outline everything I think, with ample proof and reasoning. Beyond that, I have no need to justify my position to you simply because you demand it, at least as long as you bring nothing new to the table.
"As in saying "because we can give you 2.5 MB/sec, you have to also in order to run an ISP", or price controls and the like."
That is bad... how? You don't like competition from the government, because they actually compete rather than collude?
"Yes, but how were these funded?"
Probably not much differently than the private ISPs, given we gave them boatloads of money for nothing!
"And I glanced through the documents and really saw no mention of hard facts like internet speed, latency, etc."
Since we're allowing personal anecdotes now, I've heard some of their speeds are as good or better than the private options, and often far cheaper. I'd find examples, but I don't really feel like it. Educate yourself.
"Ok, so apparently having no competition and there declaring that it is the clear winner proves your point? All it seems to prove that in a race even if you were the slowest one competing, you can still win first prize. And yes, USPS is a big pile of shit. I detailed this in another post, but I'll post it again here "
So USPS is a pile of shit because of a anecdote on your part? Show me a country with substantially better mail service from a private organization or organizations.
No, wait, don't. I've wasted enough time on your bullshit. Come back to the table in a few years when you grow up and have something to offer the discussion other than "I don't like the government, the government is always wrong, even when it's right."
"Because in general, a public anything ends up bullying the private sector by effectively forcing them to conform to their methods or by requiring the public to pay a tax even if they don't use it they still pay for it."
Define "bullying the private sector" - because from your incredibly vague claims there, I'd say it's a good thing.
"The problem is, there is no major public thing that I know of that does not either bully the private sector or require payment by those who don't use it and funding it purely with a use tax."
Roads. Mail (see below). Internet. Yes, internet. Municipal internet has on many occasions proven cheaper and more reliable than private. See here or here for a list. I personally know people who use these services and will tell you how superior they are to the private internet in the same towns. Oh, did I mention how private interests like to sue cities for providing these? Yes, we can hand over out infrastructure to privates...
"Yeah thats because the government gave the USPS a legal monopoly on first class letters. So USPS can't send letters if it wanted to because the government fucked with the free market. Now how does that help your point?"
You just made my point, sir. A public organization has control of a market and has service and price that is as good as or better than the majority of the world's. NOT some kind of hell on earth, totally inefficient, money-bleeding, Soviet-like organization that libertarians go about claiming will result from nationalizing businesses. It proves that nationalized infrastructure works. So why don't we try with internet?
I'm not going to do a line-by-line reply, because I've already rebutted all your points. Except the fact that regulation = socialism, and that if we make internet public we'll be no better than the Soviet Union (how about roads? Guess we should just put up a statue of Stalin in front of the white house because they're public), which is so laughable I don't think I have to.
"Yeah, because that works so well for power/water companies. No. You get crap service, prices equivalent to gouging and generally a worse experience than ever before."
If it's true that the government can only do bad, why then do you think my suggestion would be a negative? I only said create a public ISP, not nationalize the whole thing (though I'd not object to that). If the private ISPs are so much better (they're not), you can use them. Choice is good, right? Or are you afraid of competition that isn't driven by profit?
"For fun compare the USPS service to FedEx or UPS, the USPS makes you jump through hoops, you get crap service and it seems yearly they want to raise their rates. You will get crap service with a public ISP."
Have you ever sent a letter via UPS? Go try. Tell me how that goes. I won't deny that USPS is not as good when it comes to package delivery, but it's not that horrible, either. What I wonder is how bad the market on mail/shipping would be if USPS didn't exist to compete with FedEx and UPS.
"Magical money" is the answer to a social problem yet again. Competitors will come out of the woodwork and be given the tens of millions required to compete with the monopolies who have more resources than the banks, all while we blow it on something that has a net zero gain to society. It is "free market" life support and nothing more; a (futile) attempt to usurp a natural monopoly by taking away what could be spent on actually improving the situation. But it will solve all our problems. Just get rid of the government, trust us!
That is only practical to a point. Yes, it does help, but there is still a large amount of redundant infrastructure. There are ways around it - say, force certain junction points to be government owned.... but that's socialism!/s
However, that still does very little to prevent corporate collusion which is a serious problem here. The big players always figure out a way, and even nationalizing a whole slew of infrastructure isn't going to prevent that. We need a public ISP, that's the only option I see making the private ones start to be honest.
Cell phone companies have no physical limitations. Stick another dish on that tower, and you're good to go. There is also nothing stopping you from building another tower somewhere else. It could be argued that there is only so much EM spectrum, but that isn't really a point of interest.
ISPs, on the other hand, deal with physical connections from your house to the backbone. Every new player in that market means a new chain from one end to the other. That means a few million dollars. Where is this money going to come from? Thin air? How about the logistical problems of running a bale of wires to every house in every subdivision?
What do you propose, exactly? You seem to just be railing against the government and saying that somehow the free market will take care of that. I want you right now to tell slashdot how, EXACTLY, it will do that. What's the plan, chief?
Without those tax dollars, do you think they would have run internet to unprofitable locations? Uhh, I guess those small towns don't need internet!
What you should be asking yourself is why the government handed over money to private interests. Why could get not define the internet as a part of vital infrastructure like highways or radio waves? Imagine if that money was not given to a for-profit interest, but one with the goal of actually enhancing society. Oh, but that's socialism!
You totally ignore my point about the efficiency of multiple networks. Why should society be shelling out billions (either through higher internet or some other way) just because 'the free market works better'? One cable works fine. We do not need 5 or 10, which is what artificially creating a "market" where there is none will mean. That will cost far more than you seem to believe it will.
It's all about off-setting costs. YOU only look at the taxes, and act as if not wanting internet is a reasonable choice today. It isn't. We need to stop letting private interests trample on our infrastructure that you rightly point out, we paid for.
Create a public ISP in every market. Stop all handouts to companies. Watch them start offering better rates and better bandwidth in a month.
They'll both happily take your life, as is shown by slavery and the horrible working conditions that were common until very recently. It just happens that the government currently keeps the corporations from taking it. Funny how that is, isn't it?
"When consumers have choice they will be more effective than "regulation" ever will be. The problem is regulation almost always reduces chocie."
There will never be choice in the US regarding internet. At least, not until some insanely different technology is invented. Currently, it doesn't look like that is going to happen in our lifetimes.
Why?
It costs money. A lot of it. Running multiple identical cables to your door, just for the sake of competition, is not efficient nor practical, and it's not going to happen for good reason. Deregulation just means that the people who own the one or two cables that do exist are free to rape you for all you can reasonably give them, and give you as little as they want in return. We are ALREADY seeing this happen, so don't go claiming it is somehow not the case.
Is there problem regulation? Yes, there is. There is a lot wrong with giving out artificial monopolies to ISPs in places where none is needed to motivate installation of the wires, and I have horrible problems with the fact that it seems cities cannot give internet to their population without being sued by some private company. On the other hand, I'm sure you think that cities providing internet is evil, because it runs counter to "the free market..."
Get some perspective, though. A few pieces of bad regulation does not make the whole concept bad, nor does it make the alternative any better. Libertarians would love to believe that if the government didn't exist, everything would be great: sorry, no. The government you at least superficially elect, but monopolies you have no say in. You cannot vote with your feet if you have only one option. It has been proven time and again that when infrastructure is handed to private interests, with no public competition, bad things happen. 10 points to you if you can figure out why that's the case.
'Our energy sector is insanely regulated also. The BP oil spill wasn't caused because of deregulation but because the morons "we" elected to congress thought it was a good idea to artificially cap liability.'
Yeah, tell me how that goes. With the good-intention Chernobyl that is modern copyright legislation, you keep telling yourself that giving any more power to private interests is a good thing. I'll keep fighting for my rights against people who advocate that, thanks you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well lets see.
"ELF_C_..." - each of these is the name of a type in C. I don't see how this is even a bit creative. I had a very similar enum in a program I wrote, except with data types from a 3D engine. My guess is that ELF_C means it would be the ELF binary format's C data type. Nothing to see here.
"ELF_K/ELF_T" - It says in the open source one that these are descriptors as well. More or less the same; universal concepts if you're going to be programming a C compiler. I bet you can find an enum just like this in visual C++.
Hmm... beyond the headings, that's really all that is in that file. If you really have been a programmer for 20 years, you have without question violated thousands of copyrights... if that file does.
More news about imaginary property. How much time and money does our society waste on propping up this outdated concept that you can own an idea? "#include " constitutes copy and pasting? I guess every program on earth violates the copyright of the guy who first wrote "int main(", and whoever started the convention of naming C++ files cpp or cxx should be hiring a lawyer about now. Money is to be made.
"I want a job that pays so well I will never need to work again."
Care to explain why society needs to bend itself to that desire?
"Lowering the barrier to entry does not produce more good works. Anyone reading slashdot in the first world could score a free or almost free computer and a text editor. Would having access to that system result in some good books being written? Probably not."
What planet are you on? We have had a ton of smaller scale books, often published only online, in recent years. That's not even counting the things which aren't actually books, but are very close. For example, web comics like MSPA, which would never have existed before computers.
"Enough gear to produce a CD, or to make a movie? It is out there, and cheap too. Doesn't mean that people, even those with talent, are going to stop what they're doing to pay the bills to crank out some good material."
Making a movie does not mean making one which will be taken seriously. The fact is, being able to buy a professional camera and do some photoshopping of the video does not equal the limitless resources of the MPAA. That's my point. You can buy hardware today which was state of the art 10 years ago, but it doesn't compare today because so much money is being changed hands towards the MPAA, that it takes literally billions to compete. I don't have billions.
"Some people will produce material. But without the shit-filtering function of the labels/networks/studios, how would you hear about anything good?"
By that logic, you shouldn't be using the internet. How do you know what's good without a megacorp monopoly telling you what to consume? Sure, there's Google, but they're not quite the MPAA yet...
Apparently it is redundant now to point out the obvious, even when the obvious is being actively ignored for political reasons. Stay classy, slashdot.
"If you knew that you could get it legally, for free in a couple of years, (wait for it to come out on DVD... Wait till it is out on TV... etc arguments) would you be in such a rush to steal it?"
The only way you can steal a movie is to stick it under your shirt and walk out of Walmart with it. Copyright infringement is not theft in a legal OR moral sense. Don't call it that because you have been told "it's close enough" by people with horribly vested interests.
How about those of us who might want to say make a film (I have considered it, I believe I have a solid idea for one), but decided not to because we did not want to support the immoral (frankly evil) oligarchy that is the MPAA? With the money that they rip off from the public and real film-makers alike, it raises the bar of entry for everyone. There is no way that my assembling even a substantial sum of money in support could ever compare with Hollywood movies. Any movie I might make without their blessing would be automatically relegated to being "indie" and seen by a few hippies and maybe show up on an obscure cable channel.
This is one of my major problems with copyright. It centralizes production by progressively making entry more expensive, which leads those in charge of production to try to reinforce copyright further.
Quality is in many ways relative: Star Wars was amazingly realistic when it came out, but its effects are now laughable. Did reality get more realistic, or did the bar get raised? Why do we need more and more expensive movies, which only make it so that the smaller artists have no chance of ever selling their concepts? In 10 years, Avatar will be looked back on and laughed at. And we still will be raising the cost of production for no real reason.
I really have to wonder why people think that [bigger, more expensive] = [better]. I say we abolish copyright and see what happens. If the MPAA closes up shop (they won't), we might take a step backwards for a few years when the money dries up. Then computing will catch up with expectations, and everyone will be able to make a movie along the lines of Avatar if they can convince a few people that their idea is good. There won't be any more billions being sunk into having better effects, so movies will compete on story. Then we'll see true art, not mass produced "movie product."
Don't fear the unknown. We have NEVER attempted a truly copyright-free society with modern technology. I say it's about time we do. Let the dinosaurs die, the future is waiting.
"Censorship can only be defeated by technology."
Revolution worked far better before we even had the technology we do. In fact, technology made people lazy and unwilling to fight censorship.
I don't care what the environmentalists say. They have, as you point out, proven themselves incompetent and shortsighted to the level of "drill baby drill". All they care about is feeling good, not the harsh realities of the world.
We need to build nuclear. We need to build nuclear like there is no tomorrow. It's the only way we can continue living in a modern civilization in the coming years. However, that alone will not prevent global warming, the danger which is supported by science and people who are far more intelligent than the "save the trees because I like trees" environmentalists who hate nuclear because it's scary. It also doesn't stop the fact that we still rely on vehicles that are powered by oil and the fact that oil is running out.
We will have to make lifestyle changes like have never been made in history. We will need to stop reproducing exponentially. We will need to give up having the shiny new thing because it is expensive, because we factored in the costs its production had on the future.
It will require sacrifice, but you know what is worse than sacrifice? The collapse of civilization that unchecked global warming and oil shortages threaten, as wars start to control the new lands in the north (hi Canada) and control what little oil is left. That's not pretty. We should be looking at that, not at rising water, as the most probable outcome of our current course of action.
You totally ignore that this will, regardless of whether you like it or not, happen. Oil is going to run out, as will coal. No matter how much you wring your hands about global warming killing cute animals or how evil scientists are for telling you that you can't shit on the world forever, this will happen. Now, the more oil we burn, the LESS oil we have to make things like plastic (which are fairly carbon neutral to HAVE). Where do you get that not burning oil means no plastics? That is utter nonsense.
Yes, hard changes are going to need to be made. These changes are going to happen eventually no matter what we do about global warming. We will need to stop driving so much (or completely), we will need to stop powering our industry with coal, and we will need to stop shipping things from China just because the Chinese work for nothing. You might hate it, but it'll happen.
The sooner we act to deal with this, the LESS money and resources we sink into what we will ultimately throw away and the more we mitigate the chances of geological disaster. Every dollar spent building highways today is being tossed into the trash. It would have been better spent on renewable or nuclear energy, which has a chance of actually allowing us to still drive to some extent, even without oil. But no. Deniers like you stick your heads in the sand, because you want short term luxury, damn the consequences which are as clear as day to anyone with a high-school level education.
Florida possibly under water? Starving and dehydrated Africans? Blowing money on useless investments? Still sending us towards social and economical ruin should by some small chance global warming NOT happen? Get a brain.
You have to make those same changes sooner or later. Coal and oil will not last forever, and they're already getting more expensive to source. You just have the option of stopping NOW and having a minimal risk of cataclysmic climate change, or wait until it runs out and have the risk of losing land. Tell me why we should wait and risk the worst so that you can drive your SUV cheaply for 10 more years.
"...so that there's nothing left but gas, and the gas is 99.999% filtered to remove impurities."
Yes, we cannot have any impurities in our greenhouse gases. That would be pollution!
Stand on your head and whistle Dixie, or your post is irrelevant.
I don't see a particularly well thought out or cited exposition on your stance. Maybe you should practice what you preach.
That said, if you want to see my argument so badly, go back and look at posts I have made before on this very site. They more than outline everything I think, with ample proof and reasoning. Beyond that, I have no need to justify my position to you simply because you demand it, at least as long as you bring nothing new to the table.
Legality without morality is simply oppression.
There is a difference between morality and legality. Learn it.
Someone needs to get back to polishing their ivory towers!
"As in saying "because we can give you 2.5 MB/sec, you have to also in order to run an ISP", or price controls and the like."
That is bad... how? You don't like competition from the government, because they actually compete rather than collude?
"Yes, but how were these funded?"
Probably not much differently than the private ISPs, given we gave them boatloads of money for nothing!
"And I glanced through the documents and really saw no mention of hard facts like internet speed, latency, etc."
Since we're allowing personal anecdotes now, I've heard some of their speeds are as good or better than the private options, and often far cheaper. I'd find examples, but I don't really feel like it. Educate yourself.
"Ok, so apparently having no competition and there declaring that it is the clear winner proves your point? All it seems to prove that in a race even if you were the slowest one competing, you can still win first prize. And yes, USPS is a big pile of shit. I detailed this in another post, but I'll post it again here "
So USPS is a pile of shit because of a anecdote on your part? Show me a country with substantially better mail service from a private organization or organizations.
No, wait, don't. I've wasted enough time on your bullshit. Come back to the table in a few years when you grow up and have something to offer the discussion other than "I don't like the government, the government is always wrong, even when it's right."
"Because in general, a public anything ends up bullying the private sector by effectively forcing them to conform to their methods or by requiring the public to pay a tax even if they don't use it they still pay for it."
Define "bullying the private sector" - because from your incredibly vague claims there, I'd say it's a good thing.
"The problem is, there is no major public thing that I know of that does not either bully the private sector or require payment by those who don't use it and funding it purely with a use tax."
Roads. Mail (see below). Internet. Yes, internet. Municipal internet has on many occasions proven cheaper and more reliable than private. See here or here for a list. I personally know people who use these services and will tell you how superior they are to the private internet in the same towns. Oh, did I mention how private interests like to sue cities for providing these? Yes, we can hand over out infrastructure to privates...
"Yeah thats because the government gave the USPS a legal monopoly on first class letters. So USPS can't send letters if it wanted to because the government fucked with the free market. Now how does that help your point?"
You just made my point, sir. A public organization has control of a market and has service and price that is as good as or better than the majority of the world's. NOT some kind of hell on earth, totally inefficient, money-bleeding, Soviet-like organization that libertarians go about claiming will result from nationalizing businesses. It proves that nationalized infrastructure works. So why don't we try with internet?
I'm not going to do a line-by-line reply, because I've already rebutted all your points. Except the fact that regulation = socialism, and that if we make internet public we'll be no better than the Soviet Union (how about roads? Guess we should just put up a statue of Stalin in front of the white house because they're public), which is so laughable I don't think I have to.
"Yeah, because that works so well for power/water companies. No. You get crap service, prices equivalent to gouging and generally a worse experience than ever before."
If it's true that the government can only do bad, why then do you think my suggestion would be a negative? I only said create a public ISP, not nationalize the whole thing (though I'd not object to that). If the private ISPs are so much better (they're not), you can use them. Choice is good, right? Or are you afraid of competition that isn't driven by profit?
"For fun compare the USPS service to FedEx or UPS, the USPS makes you jump through hoops, you get crap service and it seems yearly they want to raise their rates. You will get crap service with a public ISP."
Have you ever sent a letter via UPS? Go try. Tell me how that goes. I won't deny that USPS is not as good when it comes to package delivery, but it's not that horrible, either. What I wonder is how bad the market on mail/shipping would be if USPS didn't exist to compete with FedEx and UPS.
"Magical money" is the answer to a social problem yet again. Competitors will come out of the woodwork and be given the tens of millions required to compete with the monopolies who have more resources than the banks, all while we blow it on something that has a net zero gain to society. It is "free market" life support and nothing more; a (futile) attempt to usurp a natural monopoly by taking away what could be spent on actually improving the situation. But it will solve all our problems. Just get rid of the government, trust us!
Gotta love the libertarians.
That is only practical to a point. Yes, it does help, but there is still a large amount of redundant infrastructure. There are ways around it - say, force certain junction points to be government owned.... but that's socialism! /s
However, that still does very little to prevent corporate collusion which is a serious problem here. The big players always figure out a way, and even nationalizing a whole slew of infrastructure isn't going to prevent that. We need a public ISP, that's the only option I see making the private ones start to be honest.
Cell phone companies have no physical limitations. Stick another dish on that tower, and you're good to go. There is also nothing stopping you from building another tower somewhere else. It could be argued that there is only so much EM spectrum, but that isn't really a point of interest.
ISPs, on the other hand, deal with physical connections from your house to the backbone. Every new player in that market means a new chain from one end to the other. That means a few million dollars. Where is this money going to come from? Thin air? How about the logistical problems of running a bale of wires to every house in every subdivision?
What do you propose, exactly? You seem to just be railing against the government and saying that somehow the free market will take care of that. I want you right now to tell slashdot how, EXACTLY, it will do that. What's the plan, chief?
Without those tax dollars, do you think they would have run internet to unprofitable locations? Uhh, I guess those small towns don't need internet!
What you should be asking yourself is why the government handed over money to private interests. Why could get not define the internet as a part of vital infrastructure like highways or radio waves? Imagine if that money was not given to a for-profit interest, but one with the goal of actually enhancing society. Oh, but that's socialism!
You totally ignore my point about the efficiency of multiple networks. Why should society be shelling out billions (either through higher internet or some other way) just because 'the free market works better'? One cable works fine. We do not need 5 or 10, which is what artificially creating a "market" where there is none will mean. That will cost far more than you seem to believe it will.
It's all about off-setting costs. YOU only look at the taxes, and act as if not wanting internet is a reasonable choice today. It isn't. We need to stop letting private interests trample on our infrastructure that you rightly point out, we paid for.
Create a public ISP in every market. Stop all handouts to companies. Watch them start offering better rates and better bandwidth in a month.
They'll both happily take your life, as is shown by slavery and the horrible working conditions that were common until very recently. It just happens that the government currently keeps the corporations from taking it. Funny how that is, isn't it?
"When consumers have choice they will be more effective than "regulation" ever will be. The problem is regulation almost always reduces chocie."
There will never be choice in the US regarding internet. At least, not until some insanely different technology is invented. Currently, it doesn't look like that is going to happen in our lifetimes.
Why?
It costs money. A lot of it. Running multiple identical cables to your door, just for the sake of competition, is not efficient nor practical, and it's not going to happen for good reason. Deregulation just means that the people who own the one or two cables that do exist are free to rape you for all you can reasonably give them, and give you as little as they want in return. We are ALREADY seeing this happen, so don't go claiming it is somehow not the case.
Is there problem regulation? Yes, there is. There is a lot wrong with giving out artificial monopolies to ISPs in places where none is needed to motivate installation of the wires, and I have horrible problems with the fact that it seems cities cannot give internet to their population without being sued by some private company. On the other hand, I'm sure you think that cities providing internet is evil, because it runs counter to "the free market..."
Get some perspective, though. A few pieces of bad regulation does not make the whole concept bad, nor does it make the alternative any better. Libertarians would love to believe that if the government didn't exist, everything would be great: sorry, no. The government you at least superficially elect, but monopolies you have no say in. You cannot vote with your feet if you have only one option. It has been proven time and again that when infrastructure is handed to private interests, with no public competition, bad things happen. 10 points to you if you can figure out why that's the case.
'Our energy sector is insanely regulated also. The BP oil spill wasn't caused because of deregulation but because the morons "we" elected to congress thought it was a good idea to artificially cap liability.'
And which party did you elect to do that? Oh, right, both the evil democrats and the free-market republicans. Gee, I wonder if they had any ulterior motive...
Or how about the current one, that is working against that?
Yeah, tell me how that goes. With the good-intention Chernobyl that is modern copyright legislation, you keep telling yourself that giving any more power to private interests is a good thing. I'll keep fighting for my rights against people who advocate that, thanks you.