The reality is that most people want something that is curated in some manner. Youtube is (even if they deny it) not just a video hosting site, but also a curation site. That curation is what makes it special.
We almost always go for curated stuff. Sorting music into genres, age, style, what have you is all about finding you what it is that you like. A radio station is a linear curation. Your website playlist is a curation. It's what we want and desire.
When you realize that most media websites are mostly trying to emulate the curation model, then you understand why the delivery method may change, but the concept remains more or less the same. This is doubly true when it comes to things that don't lend themselves to time shifting or binge watching, such as live sports, awards events, live concerts, and so on. In your mind, you would prefer to have one or two sources, rather than having to spend all your life looking around trying to find the things you like. Reliable curated sources are what you pay for. They use to be called channels, now they are streams Is there a real difference?
Watching you get sort of pretend mad at Google is pretty entertaining.
"...Google's longstanding position has always been that they don't interfere to go after specific sites..."
Google generally says "we try to fix things in the algo". They have done that for years, and when Matt Cutts was in charge of webspam and whatnot, he would issue the standard individual site denials on a regular basis.
Yet, Google in their webmaster tools has a section to show you when you site has be subject to a manual penalty. So wait, they don't deal with individual sites but they have a way to explain manual penalties? Oh, the contradictions!
You also have to consider the whole EU anti-trust thing. One of the things Google has always been good at is manipulating their own results to favor their own projects and properties. Back in the early days, if you put adsense on a site, it was reported that you might be more highly ranked in the results.
Manually adjusting results, or putting a virtual thumb on a given site, isn't anything new. Google hates to talk about it, they would never want to admit it, but they have the ability and have used the ability to manipulate results.
You have never had a door lock that defaults to locking when you close the door? Wow. It's actually pretty common, I would say that half of the condos I have lived in come with this sort of feature.
Come to think of it, every hotel I stay at has this feature.
it is also one of the reasons (I think) that Google ran away from Fiber. 5% return over 5 years is nothing compared to saving 25% tax by shipping money overseas as "licensing fees" or "service fees". Low return on income isn't how Google got rich!
I live in a place where gigabit internet is as common as house flies. I have (last I checked) 4 ways to get gigabit fixed service, and 7 ways to get LTE wireless of at least 50mbps. But much of that comes down to incredible population density (one of the top 5, 3 out of the five within a couple of hours flight) which allows for a huge number of installations for a much lower cost. If i stood on the roof of my building, I can see more than the population of Lexington within eye sight (and there are lots of mountains blocking the views).
The US is mostly very rural, and rural is pretty darn expensive to wire up. You also have to deal with permits and such, OSHA rules, licensed contractors, and so on. It's not cheap to wire, that is for sure. The Lexington example is in a place that is fairly dense all considered (about 150 people per square mile) with most of the residential in an even more confined space. You go out into rural West Virginia where you are wiring up 1 or 2 houses per mile, and the costs go way out of hand fast.
Even B4RN in the UK was looking at $6 per meter, and that was with absolutely no right of way issues and no labor of installation expenses (they did it themselves out of pocket). That means just the cabling is costing them almost $10,000 per mile to run. So when you are running a cable past 1 houses per mile in rural US, you are looking at a $5000 "nut" to crack to make money - and that is ignoring what ever other last mile costs might be related to getting from the pole to the house.
It's why companies from Microsoft to Google to Linksys and such are all looking for wireless solutions. Much of the US isn't densely populated enough to make running fiber reasonable.
The numbers don't lie, no matter how hard Karl will try to spin it. The US has a real issue that won't get resolved easily.
I actually only have one question on this, which is simply:
How does the intruder have the mac addresses handy before the attack?
Actually, second question would be why the lock device doesn't default to automatically locking when the door closes, regardless of an internet connection?
I was also trying to figure out if the same results could be accomplished only by having something that emits a higher power signal on the wi-fi channels and basically disconnects one from the other...
Anyway, seems like it's not just a minor glitch, but rather a basic concept failure: Door should default to locked when not online. If it loses it's connections, it should immediately lock. If the door is closed, it should lock automatically. The camera should record regardless of a web connection, it wouldn't take much memory to be able to handle that.
Yup, about 100 million dollars just to wire it up. It worked out to about $770 per address. When you consider that maybe 1/3 will take their product (over other choices) you have to amortize the costs times 3... so round figures say $2500 over 5 years (about normal run off time for this stuff) and you have just under $40 a month just in principal to pay it off, and then another $10 month or so in interest (at 5%) to make it pay off.
So before you even start to pay for service, they have a "nut" to crack every month. So your gigabit bill is likely to be whatever you pay now PLUS their basic cost to pay off.
Longer term, they may be able to lower that as they pay down the equipment, but then they get into replacement and such, and that's not any cheaper in the long run.
The Lexington deal shows that, in a 350,000 city with decent population density, it's still quite expensive. When the costs per address are considered and 33% market penetration set as the goal, they were still looking at $37 per month over 5 years just to pay out the initial costs over 5 years.
Google's pricing (including the free 5 meg setups) was so close to that number alone, that it's doubtful they are making any real net income as an ISP for now.
Yes, they ran into plenty of issues, including stupid pole laws and rules. However, Google can afford to get around them, and should be patient. But when you consider that their existing "local government paved the way and rolled out the red carpet" setups were not making any real return, as soon as they hit the slightest resistance, they were done.
People will say "Google never reported results just for their Fiber product", and they would be correct. However, Google does highlight good results no matter where they happen. That Fiber was generally buried in the massive money losing pit of "moon shot" projects, you can tell where it landed. If it was a rousing success, Google would have broken it out and crowed about it until the ends of the earth. They did not. Clearly, being an ISP (even in the current completed install base) isn't making them enough money to bother getting up in the morning.
They essentially have dropped further development of their fiber network until they find a way to do the final mile in bulk, likely by a proprietary version of higher power wifi or something similar. They figured out that the costs to actually install the final mile and to actually keep it working and support the customers was well beyond their wildest dreams.
Google gave up because the return on investment isn't there. They can make more parking the cash offshore and avoiding tax than they can building infrastructure. While they won't talk about it, I am guessing that all the fiber they did lay didn't make a notable dent on the number of searches or ads clicked from those areas which is a key metric for them (the only one, it seems).
If the existing ISPs suddenly stuff the internet and make it so you can only get to Facebook and their video product, people will scream, politicians (at all levels) will have no choice but to take action, and competition will appear.
You seem to think that the existing companies can feed you whatever they like and nothing will happen. That doesn't even start to make any sense.
.. except, of course, they live in the real world and not in your fantasy hell, so they aren't going there. Why would they? All they would do is sow the seeds of competition and their own deaths.
Until you understand that the problem isn't "neutrality" but rather that the problem lives in the last mile that nobody wants to fix, you will never know how you got here.
The only reason you see streaming coming into the mainstream is because it's cost has finally reached a reasonable level, and can be operated by companies on a complexity level similar to that of broadcast or satellite distribution.
I also think it's only the first step towards what I call "IP Cable companies", where the same selection of channels you have now on cable will be available on your preferred device(s), with a similar net cost to what you are paying now (internet plus cable). You will likely have a little better choice and selection, and a little better control over the channels you actually pay for, but the model is up and coming.
Wow, a whole lot of stuff in there, but let's give it a whirl.
if your problem is sore feet, you don't improve your walking by getting a shaved and haircut. Might make you look better, but your feet are still sore and you are limping. NN was created in no small part because nobody seems to want to advance the idea of competition. In fact, Wheeler's FCC spent most of it's time generating reports that suggested that you had a ton of options that weren't options at all. Then he raised the bar to 25 meg a second, but didn't explain how anyone should get there.
"Would you rather keep the internet free and open until true competition returns? "
The internet was free and open before Wheeler stepped in. If you have been around long enough (look up history since baudot for more), you would realize that the internet has been incredibly open and incredibly flexible. More than 20 years after going commercial, it continued to operate in the same manner, all over the world.
"ould you rather have the internet devolve into paid for tiers where you have to pay extra just to get access to Netflix and Facebook,"
Since nobody (and I mean nobody) in the US is even suggesting to offer that, you are off the mark. I will say however if you current ISP charges you $60 a month, and you only ever watch Netflix, an option to only have access to netflix at $10 a month seems like a pretty good deal for most people.
There is no indication, outside of hateful fake graphics, that any US ISP has any intention of offering ONLY tiered internet access.
Most important is this: If they tried it, they would create the perfect situation for competition to come in, and for local, state, and federal authorities to take action to allow a competitor to swiftly wire up a given area. No big player ISP is stupid enough to create their own spectacular demise.
Alas, here is the rub: nobody can point to a specific actual problem that wasn't already getting resolved.
The closest they get is Netflix trying to buy their way onto ISPs networks with direct connections.
NN (as implemented) was a flea on the dog's tail wagging the dog. It's burning down the house to try to kill that flea, dog be damned.
It's also trying to fix the real issues (how much connectivity an ISP has versus customer connection speeds) by teaching them how to stand up straight. It will never really work out.
It also entirely failed to work to create new competition or to encourage new players to enter the market. This is the bigger overall issue. Supporters of NN seem to think it is magic, but in reality it may be nothing more than setting whatever the current situation is into stone.
Google (one of the worlds biggest companies with a huge cash hoard) tried to be an ISP and discovered that high costs and low returns, even in their cherry picked markets meant it's not worth investing in under the current circumstances. Few others are lining up even to give it a go. The lack of competition is a real problem, one that needs to be addressed on a national, and not local level.
NN fixes what wasn't really broken. it does seem to at least somewhat impair what was actually working. It's not a win, except on paper in a theoretical universe.
Actually, aside from a very, very long, and very acrimonious legal battle, the result remained the same:
6-3 ruling in favor of the FCC.
In fact, a good summary I am reading to get up speed included this passage:
"While, as noted above, the Supreme Court expressly did not reach the question of how broadband services other than cable modem services should be classified and regulated, the opinion strongly suggests that all such services should be classified in a similar fashion and should be minimally regulated. "
If you live in a "city" of 100,000 you should think that you are doing good to have two options. 100,000 population isn't very big, you are talking only about 40,000 addresses, and even if most of them take one or the other service, they are only looking at 20k clients each. Add a third option, and that number would drop to about 13k each.
Oh, and for what it's worth, there are about 300 cities in the US over 100,000 people. Many of those are "suburb cities" located close to larger cities, such as around Southern California, New York, and South Florida.
See, we had a chat about the economics of it all the other day. Lexington is having a company do the work for about $770 per household on average. In your burg, that would mean shelling out between 30 and 35 million just to enter the game - to get your 15k clients. So they would be out of pocket just over $2000 per customer (assuming they get that many signups) which, amortized over 5 years at 5% (pretty low really) would run them $38 per month per subscriber, just to be in the game. That doesn't pay for actual or ongoing service, it just pays to build out the network to even start.
With numbers like that, nobody is lining up to play. Google tried, figured it out pretty quickly, and have basically tucked their tail between their legs and run away.
For Incumbent players, with declining revenues from cable TV and landline phones, they don't have the space to turn around and spend that level of money for the return. So you are sort of stuck in a holding pattern.
Good luck with it. Net Neutrality or not, it's doubtful your service will get any better any time soon.
"*sigh* When you have the choice of exactly one ISP in your city and you need an internet connection to work a job to live and eat, how exactly are we supposed to boycott ISP's again?"
If you have only one ISP, perhaps you live in the wrong place. Your desire for your own white picket fence and a long commute to town is what will get you every time.
Damn, you guys are so easily trolled. It's so easily, I swear that TD staff are actually playing the trolls just to get you guys going. It's seriously funny.
That said, let's deal with reality.
Reality: If it isn't the law, it is easily changed. Where are the congress critters? Where is Wyden? Strange level of silence from that corner!
If you want net neutrality for real, put it in law. Without that, the discussion is meaningless because it will change every time the commissioner of the FCC gets bad gas. It requires nothing more than a simple show of hands from a captive commission.
Also, the "overwhelming backlash" thing has me going. What exactly is the backlash going to be at? Are you guys going to vote Pai out of office? Oh wait, you didn't vote him in. Are you going to drop your internet connections and go back to reading books? Are you going to get mad at your congress critters and then re-elect the same ones next time around?
Seriously, what is the actual and honest leverage here? Pai doesn't care, he's got the job and it's his to keep at least until Trump's term is done. He's not going anywhere, and there doesn't seem to be any move to change that.
So aside from the hand waving, what is there really?
"Wiring up everywhere all at once is clearly not feasible, but build up in stages, perhaps over the course of a decade,"
The US doesn't work that way. The old "no extremely rural dust farmer left behind" type things that the government loves gets in the way. If you want to divide it up over 10 years, you need to tell 90% of the people to wait 1 to 9 years longer than someone else. Imagine the lawsuits!
It's why the Lexington thing is so funny. You guys are all excited about muni level broadband but it's exclusionary to the max. Gigabit in town, and if you live 1 mile outside, forget about it! Under normal circumstances, you guys would yell and scream about it. Hmmm!
Good fun to watch the opinion change with the wind direction!
My assumption is that the students with the drugs are smart enough not to have them on their person or in their lockers, but rather in various stash locations around the school. It's pretty basic stuff.
That zero out of 850 had anything at all is like a statistical anomaly. Perhaps they picked the wrong day of the week (monday instead of friday, as an example) as everyone had depleted their supplies.
300 Billion has been given over how long, exactly? Most of it was given to get from zero to where we are now, many, many, many years ago. Much of that money was given to wire places that otherwise would have no such service as all, such as places like Montana.
Remember this too:
341 people per square mile The 2016 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area, Kentucky, population is 500,535. There are 341 people per square mile (population density). Family in Lexington-Fayette Metro Area, Kentucky. The median age is 35.5.
The US national population density is less than a third of that. It's therefore very likely that the costs to wire up all of the US would be significantly higher.
Oh, and if Spectrum triples their prices, then they will have opened the door for competition. You should be happy if they do.
Of course not everything is "well known" but had to be known enough for someone to find it.
Citing a work doesn't mean that everyone reading your report or using your product has to go out and buy a copy of the cited work. In fact, many of the most cited works are also freely and openly discussed in other papers and other works, peer reviewed, and so on.
The stuff isn't locked up so nobody can read it or access it.
Citations don't mean that the work is unknown or the conclusions / results hidden. A citation is not a requirement to purchase the cited work. Citation isn't inclusion.
On the post: NFL Expands Streaming Even Further With New Deal With Verizon, Which Will Make Mobile Streaming Non-Exclusive
Re: Re: Cost effective
We almost always go for curated stuff. Sorting music into genres, age, style, what have you is all about finding you what it is that you like. A radio station is a linear curation. Your website playlist is a curation. It's what we want and desire.
When you realize that most media websites are mostly trying to emulate the curation model, then you understand why the delivery method may change, but the concept remains more or less the same. This is doubly true when it comes to things that don't lend themselves to time shifting or binge watching, such as live sports, awards events, live concerts, and so on. In your mind, you would prefer to have one or two sources, rather than having to spend all your life looking around trying to find the things you like. Reliable curated sources are what you pay for. They use to be called channels, now they are streams Is there a real difference?
On the post: Russia Threatens To Go To War With Google Over Stupid Comments By Eric Schmidt
"...Google's longstanding position has always been that they don't interfere to go after specific sites..."
Google generally says "we try to fix things in the algo". They have done that for years, and when Matt Cutts was in charge of webspam and whatnot, he would issue the standard individual site denials on a regular basis.
Yet, Google in their webmaster tools has a section to show you when you site has be subject to a manual penalty. So wait, they don't deal with individual sites but they have a way to explain manual penalties? Oh, the contradictions!
You also have to consider the whole EU anti-trust thing. One of the things Google has always been good at is manipulating their own results to favor their own projects and properties. Back in the early days, if you put adsense on a site, it was reported that you might be more highly ranked in the results.
Manually adjusting results, or putting a virtual thumb on a given site, isn't anything new. Google hates to talk about it, they would never want to admit it, but they have the ability and have used the ability to manipulate results.
On the post: Vulnerability Found In Amazon Key, Again Showing How Dumber Tech Is Often The Smarter Option
Re: Re:
Come to think of it, every hotel I stay at has this feature.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is also one of the reasons (I think) that Google ran away from Fiber. 5% return over 5 years is nothing compared to saving 25% tax by shipping money overseas as "licensing fees" or "service fees". Low return on income isn't how Google got rich!
I live in a place where gigabit internet is as common as house flies. I have (last I checked) 4 ways to get gigabit fixed service, and 7 ways to get LTE wireless of at least 50mbps. But much of that comes down to incredible population density (one of the top 5, 3 out of the five within a couple of hours flight) which allows for a huge number of installations for a much lower cost. If i stood on the roof of my building, I can see more than the population of Lexington within eye sight (and there are lots of mountains blocking the views).
The US is mostly very rural, and rural is pretty darn expensive to wire up. You also have to deal with permits and such, OSHA rules, licensed contractors, and so on. It's not cheap to wire, that is for sure. The Lexington example is in a place that is fairly dense all considered (about 150 people per square mile) with most of the residential in an even more confined space. You go out into rural West Virginia where you are wiring up 1 or 2 houses per mile, and the costs go way out of hand fast.
Even B4RN in the UK was looking at $6 per meter, and that was with absolutely no right of way issues and no labor of installation expenses (they did it themselves out of pocket). That means just the cabling is costing them almost $10,000 per mile to run. So when you are running a cable past 1 houses per mile in rural US, you are looking at a $5000 "nut" to crack to make money - and that is ignoring what ever other last mile costs might be related to getting from the pole to the house.
It's why companies from Microsoft to Google to Linksys and such are all looking for wireless solutions. Much of the US isn't densely populated enough to make running fiber reasonable.
The numbers don't lie, no matter how hard Karl will try to spin it. The US has a real issue that won't get resolved easily.
On the post: Vulnerability Found In Amazon Key, Again Showing How Dumber Tech Is Often The Smarter Option
How does the intruder have the mac addresses handy before the attack?
Actually, second question would be why the lock device doesn't default to automatically locking when the door closes, regardless of an internet connection?
I was also trying to figure out if the same results could be accomplished only by having something that emits a higher power signal on the wi-fi channels and basically disconnects one from the other...
Anyway, seems like it's not just a minor glitch, but rather a basic concept failure: Door should default to locked when not online. If it loses it's connections, it should immediately lock. If the door is closed, it should lock automatically. The camera should record regardless of a web connection, it wouldn't take much memory to be able to handle that.
Yup, for $250, it's pretty much a failure.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So before you even start to pay for service, they have a "nut" to crack every month. So your gigabit bill is likely to be whatever you pay now PLUS their basic cost to pay off.
Longer term, they may be able to lower that as they pay down the equipment, but then they get into replacement and such, and that's not any cheaper in the long run.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Lexington deal shows that, in a 350,000 city with decent population density, it's still quite expensive. When the costs per address are considered and 33% market penetration set as the goal, they were still looking at $37 per month over 5 years just to pay out the initial costs over 5 years.
Google's pricing (including the free 5 meg setups) was so close to that number alone, that it's doubtful they are making any real net income as an ISP for now.
Yes, they ran into plenty of issues, including stupid pole laws and rules. However, Google can afford to get around them, and should be patient. But when you consider that their existing "local government paved the way and rolled out the red carpet" setups were not making any real return, as soon as they hit the slightest resistance, they were done.
People will say "Google never reported results just for their Fiber product", and they would be correct. However, Google does highlight good results no matter where they happen. That Fiber was generally buried in the massive money losing pit of "moon shot" projects, you can tell where it landed. If it was a rousing success, Google would have broken it out and crowed about it until the ends of the earth. They did not. Clearly, being an ISP (even in the current completed install base) isn't making them enough money to bother getting up in the morning.
They essentially have dropped further development of their fiber network until they find a way to do the final mile in bulk, likely by a proprietary version of higher power wifi or something similar. They figured out that the costs to actually install the final mile and to actually keep it working and support the customers was well beyond their wildest dreams.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google gave up because the return on investment isn't there. They can make more parking the cash offshore and avoiding tax than they can building infrastructure. While they won't talk about it, I am guessing that all the fiber they did lay didn't make a notable dent on the number of searches or ads clicked from those areas which is a key metric for them (the only one, it seems).
If the existing ISPs suddenly stuff the internet and make it so you can only get to Facebook and their video product, people will scream, politicians (at all levels) will have no choice but to take action, and competition will appear.
You seem to think that the existing companies can feed you whatever they like and nothing will happen. That doesn't even start to make any sense.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what problem
Until you understand that the problem isn't "neutrality" but rather that the problem lives in the last mile that nobody wants to fix, you will never know how you got here.
On the post: NFL Expands Streaming Even Further With New Deal With Verizon, Which Will Make Mobile Streaming Non-Exclusive
Cost effective
I also think it's only the first step towards what I call "IP Cable companies", where the same selection of channels you have now on cable will be available on your preferred device(s), with a similar net cost to what you are paying now (internet plus cable). You will likely have a little better choice and selection, and a little better control over the channels you actually pay for, but the model is up and coming.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if your problem is sore feet, you don't improve your walking by getting a shaved and haircut. Might make you look better, but your feet are still sore and you are limping. NN was created in no small part because nobody seems to want to advance the idea of competition. In fact, Wheeler's FCC spent most of it's time generating reports that suggested that you had a ton of options that weren't options at all. Then he raised the bar to 25 meg a second, but didn't explain how anyone should get there.
"Would you rather keep the internet free and open until true competition returns? "
The internet was free and open before Wheeler stepped in. If you have been around long enough (look up history since baudot for more), you would realize that the internet has been incredibly open and incredibly flexible. More than 20 years after going commercial, it continued to operate in the same manner, all over the world.
"ould you rather have the internet devolve into paid for tiers where you have to pay extra just to get access to Netflix and Facebook,"
Since nobody (and I mean nobody) in the US is even suggesting to offer that, you are off the mark. I will say however if you current ISP charges you $60 a month, and you only ever watch Netflix, an option to only have access to netflix at $10 a month seems like a pretty good deal for most people.
There is no indication, outside of hateful fake graphics, that any US ISP has any intention of offering ONLY tiered internet access.
Most important is this: If they tried it, they would create the perfect situation for competition to come in, and for local, state, and federal authorities to take action to allow a competitor to swiftly wire up a given area. No big player ISP is stupid enough to create their own spectacular demise.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re:
The closest they get is Netflix trying to buy their way onto ISPs networks with direct connections.
NN (as implemented) was a flea on the dog's tail wagging the dog. It's burning down the house to try to kill that flea, dog be damned.
It's also trying to fix the real issues (how much connectivity an ISP has versus customer connection speeds) by teaching them how to stand up straight. It will never really work out.
It also entirely failed to work to create new competition or to encourage new players to enter the market. This is the bigger overall issue. Supporters of NN seem to think it is magic, but in reality it may be nothing more than setting whatever the current situation is into stone.
Google (one of the worlds biggest companies with a huge cash hoard) tried to be an ISP and discovered that high costs and low returns, even in their cherry picked markets meant it's not worth investing in under the current circumstances. Few others are lining up even to give it a go. The lack of competition is a real problem, one that needs to be addressed on a national, and not local level.
NN fixes what wasn't really broken. it does seem to at least somewhat impair what was actually working. It's not a win, except on paper in a theoretical universe.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re:
6-3 ruling in favor of the FCC.
In fact, a good summary I am reading to get up speed included this passage:
"While, as noted above, the Supreme Court expressly did not reach the question of how broadband services other than cable modem services should be classified and regulated, the opinion strongly suggests that all such services should be classified in a similar fashion and should be minimally regulated. "
https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-pressreleases-161.html
Let's just say that it seems to give the FCC an incredibly huge amount of leeway to operate in.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and for what it's worth, there are about 300 cities in the US over 100,000 people. Many of those are "suburb cities" located close to larger cities, such as around Southern California, New York, and South Florida.
See, we had a chat about the economics of it all the other day. Lexington is having a company do the work for about $770 per household on average. In your burg, that would mean shelling out between 30 and 35 million just to enter the game - to get your 15k clients. So they would be out of pocket just over $2000 per customer (assuming they get that many signups) which, amortized over 5 years at 5% (pretty low really) would run them $38 per month per subscriber, just to be in the game. That doesn't pay for actual or ongoing service, it just pays to build out the network to even start.
With numbers like that, nobody is lining up to play. Google tried, figured it out pretty quickly, and have basically tucked their tail between their legs and run away.
For Incumbent players, with declining revenues from cable TV and landline phones, they don't have the space to turn around and spend that level of money for the return. So you are sort of stuck in a holding pattern.
Good luck with it. Net Neutrality or not, it's doubtful your service will get any better any time soon.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: Re:
If you have only one ISP, perhaps you live in the wrong place. Your desire for your own white picket fence and a long commute to town is what will get you every time.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
That said, let's deal with reality.
Reality: If it isn't the law, it is easily changed. Where are the congress critters? Where is Wyden? Strange level of silence from that corner!
If you want net neutrality for real, put it in law. Without that, the discussion is meaningless because it will change every time the commissioner of the FCC gets bad gas. It requires nothing more than a simple show of hands from a captive commission.
Also, the "overwhelming backlash" thing has me going. What exactly is the backlash going to be at? Are you guys going to vote Pai out of office? Oh wait, you didn't vote him in. Are you going to drop your internet connections and go back to reading books? Are you going to get mad at your congress critters and then re-elect the same ones next time around?
Seriously, what is the actual and honest leverage here? Pai doesn't care, he's got the job and it's his to keep at least until Trump's term is done. He's not going anywhere, and there doesn't seem to be any move to change that.
So aside from the hand waving, what is there really?
On the post: Disgusted With Charter Spectrum Merger, Lexington To Build Entirely New Fiber Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US doesn't work that way. The old "no extremely rural dust farmer left behind" type things that the government loves gets in the way. If you want to divide it up over 10 years, you need to tell 90% of the people to wait 1 to 9 years longer than someone else. Imagine the lawsuits!
It's why the Lexington thing is so funny. You guys are all excited about muni level broadband but it's exclusionary to the max. Gigabit in town, and if you live 1 mile outside, forget about it! Under normal circumstances, you guys would yell and scream about it. Hmmm!
Good fun to watch the opinion change with the wind direction!
On the post: Sheriff's Office To Pay $3 Million For Invasive Searches Of 850 High School Students
Re: Huh?
That zero out of 850 had anything at all is like a statistical anomaly. Perhaps they picked the wrong day of the week (monday instead of friday, as an example) as everyone had depleted their supplies.
On the post: Disgusted With Charter Spectrum Merger, Lexington To Build Entirely New Fiber Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
300 Billion has been given over how long, exactly? Most of it was given to get from zero to where we are now, many, many, many years ago. Much of that money was given to wire places that otherwise would have no such service as all, such as places like Montana.
Remember this too:
341 people per square mile
The 2016 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area, Kentucky, population is 500,535. There are 341 people per square mile (population density). Family in Lexington-Fayette Metro Area, Kentucky.
The median age is 35.5.
The US national population density is less than a third of that. It's therefore very likely that the costs to wire up all of the US would be significantly higher.
Oh, and if Spectrum triples their prices, then they will have opened the door for competition. You should be happy if they do.
On the post: The Sad Legacy Of Copyright: Locking Up Scientific Knowledge And Impeding Progress
Re: Re:
Citing a work doesn't mean that everyone reading your report or using your product has to go out and buy a copy of the cited work. In fact, many of the most cited works are also freely and openly discussed in other papers and other works, peer reviewed, and so on.
The stuff isn't locked up so nobody can read it or access it.
Citations don't mean that the work is unknown or the conclusions / results hidden. A citation is not a requirement to purchase the cited work. Citation isn't inclusion.
Next >>