Much as I agree that there is often some truth and predictive ability of The Domino Theory, I STILL don't believe we should to prohibit reasonable things because we don't like "the next logical step."
This is why I don't buy the USA conservative argument that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because shortly after, some guy will marry his goat."
If we must create laws, and we dislike step 2, then let's create laws that prohibit step 2, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is something to think about for all those (primarily Libertarians) who constantly cheer for "small government!!". You see, much like an investment porfolio, a government functions best when it is larger, and has more diverse interests represented. For example, voters in NYC would not be in favor of Wyoming's gag law, but their opinions don't matter to the state of WY, and thus small government also means small-minded.
Think of all the studies that show diversified thinking results in better decisions. Small gov't ignores that.
Think about a resource-extraction state, like Alaska. Do you think Alaska is "balanced" in their governance when choices are between protecting the environment, and extracting more oil or trees? Well, since most people in the state are paid either directly or indirectly by resource extraction, they get lots of "drill baby drill", and nothing else.
Ever see a mining town that was anti-mining? Iowa is corn first, WY is cows first, Alaska is resource extraction first, and damn the consequences. Great!
This is not an argument for "one world government", much as a stock porfolio diversity plan does not need thousands of stocks. A dozen or more provides adequate diversity. A nation as diverse and as large as the USA has plenty of diversity built-in. But distilled down to the state level, local priorities may be biased by local enterprise.
You're example is a fixed broadband. That is relatively commoditized, but this article is wireless. I'm not clear if we're on the same page or not. But there is more to wireless competition (and fixed) than just price.
Some key differentiators for wireless: - network coverage footprint - speeds across that footprint - customer service quality - customer service wait times - retail, brick and mortar presence - device availability, exclusivity - Free included apps, or even better, lack of those apps - Faster OS updates for Android phones - SIM locking phones or not - Offer subsidized model, or not with discount (like T-Mo) - content exclusivity (VZW has NFL) - international roaming inclusion - wifi offload inclusion - better, simpler billing - better bundles, family plan - integration with IoT - etc, etc.
If a carrier got all the above right for me, I'd gladly pay them multiples of the cheapest offer. Heck, I pay AT&T about 3X for my AT&T lines versus what I pay Republic for my 1 line there. There's a reason.
I hope you're kidding, or just misusing the word "evolving".
I think you may mean "adapting" or changing our culture.
Because evolution is a much slower process, takes millenia, and requires those "less fit" to not reproduce and/or die. Because of our healthcare and our somewhat monogamous family structure, many of the "less fit" take their turn at reproduction. I'm not sure how humans are likely to evolve. It seems that natural selection has been "denaturalized" by humans. Our rates of reproduction are also odd, such as 8 children per woman in Uganda to the sub 2/per rates we see in developed nations.
Karl, I fundamentally don't agree with your argument here.
Let's abstract it, and not talk about VZW and Tmo at all.
Businesses do NOT have to compete on price. Not at all. Apple doesn't, Faberge doesn't, Nike doesn't, LL Bean doesn't, etc.
You can compete on a number of qualities depending on the product. Yes, price will always play a role, but customers have proven that they will choose a higher priced product if other factors are considered superior. Quality, differentiation, new features, exclusivity, location, speed, service, cachet, brand, accessibility, privacy...these are all features that could affect the price consumers are willing to pay for a product.
He outlined three specific concepts for companies to succeed, only one of these was price. While I don't accept his argument as 100% law, his arguments are pretty useful to disabuse the notion that competition MUST always be on price.
Frankly, the entire economy would be a race to the bottom if it were so. There would be little differentiation, no innovation, and little quality if your hypothesis from this article were correct. It would be a sad, sad outcome.
It's not extreme. Either you have NN, or you don't. A "little bit of a walled garden" is immediately 100% NOT a neutral network.
That's the funny thing about stuff like NN, pregnancy, binary bits. You either got it, or you don't.
I'm actually not dead-against Internet.org, but I sure don't think it offers NN. I think it *could* be OK, so long as the walled garden content providers PAY the carrier the same rate per MB to carry the data to the customers as the customers would pay for any other content, AND the users are in no way blocked from other content. This would make it like 1-800 phone numbers where the businesses pay the toll.
Well, as anonymous as you can be with security cams, gov't cams, traffic light cams, and license plate recognition.
Oh. And cell phone tracking. And connected cars, and "Black box" functionality in some cars. And credit card receipts when you transact at your destination.
Man. If I went to all the trouble to hack my transponder so that I could film a video to demonstrate gov't over-reach...I'd go the extra mile and "hack" a tripod or phone holder.
Either way, it's a negative. We're supposed to be teaching kids to prepare them for life's tests. Not for academic tests.
"Teaching to the test" is negative because the focus is on creating the appearance of an education, but the kids may have no clue how to apply that lesson to real world situations.
"we're still making money off some of these things so we have to restrict everything until the gravy train stops"
Actually, what they are saying/doing is more like:
"We're still making money of 0.03% of this content, so we have to restrict your access to ALL of it until the gravy train stops."
They are salting the fields. Basically, willing to block access to tremendous amounts of content as collateral damage in their quest for greed-fueled profiteering.
And the irony is the point you made, that this song actually achieved greater fame, profit, joy-delivery, etc. ONLY when derivatives of it were made by Donovan and others. This very song that Music Canada's spokesdouche brought up shows the value of derivative content can often exceed the original.
Also, the public good is not only measured in dollars for the economy. Songs in the public domain can offer $ millions in intangible value (economically called consumer surplus.) Basically, if we enjoy it for free, that is still a good thing, whether it registers in GDP or not.
Dude: You can already go out and buy any GSM phone you want, slide in your AT&T SIM card, and start calling. That's not new.
The OnePlus One is currently the darling phone for people who want this kind of approach.
Fact is, almost nobody does it, though, because the US carriers subsidize their phones, and then make users "pay back" that subsidy in the monthly bill -- whether you bought their cheap phone or your own full-price phone. Thus, most people take the cheaper carrier-tweaked phone.
It is true that a Google MVNO will reduce the power of the subsidy in controlling phones. They will expect people to buy their own Nexus 6 phone, and not subsidize. Of course, they aren't the first. T-Mo already offers this, as do numerous US MVNOs.
But, the Google MVNO will have very specific and unusual hardware, software, and radio requirements. Both Sprint and T-Mo USA have oddball frequencies not consistent with the rest of the world. That doesn't make the combined network an attractive target for hundreds of phone makers. It requires a bespoke phone, which would not ship in high volumes for two reasons: your assertion that there would be hundreds of vendors, and the fact that Google has indicated it is not seeking large scale.
On the post: There Aren't Many Ways To Do Online Reputation Management Right, And This Isn't One Of Them
It's Totes Legit!
Sure there is. It is "legal" in the sense that it is not illegal. It is an "allowed" document.
On the post: Sony Uses Copyright To Force Verge To Takedown Its Copy Of Sony's Spotify Contract
Re: Re:
BTW, have you ever dealt with this issue before? Like with Apple or such? And have you ever got a C&D from Sony?
On the post: European Mobile Networks Plan To Block Ads, Not For Your Safety, But To Mess With Google
Re: mission creep
This is why I don't buy the USA conservative argument that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because shortly after, some guy will marry his goat."
If we must create laws, and we dislike step 2, then let's create laws that prohibit step 2, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
On the post: European Mobile Networks Plan To Block Ads, Not For Your Safety, But To Mess With Google
Re: Re:
On the post: Wyoming Makes Reporting Environmental Disasters Illegal
Small Government
Think of all the studies that show diversified thinking results in better decisions. Small gov't ignores that.
Think about a resource-extraction state, like Alaska. Do you think Alaska is "balanced" in their governance when choices are between protecting the environment, and extracting more oil or trees? Well, since most people in the state are paid either directly or indirectly by resource extraction, they get lots of "drill baby drill", and nothing else.
Ever see a mining town that was anti-mining? Iowa is corn first, WY is cows first, Alaska is resource extraction first, and damn the consequences. Great!
This is not an argument for "one world government", much as a stock porfolio diversity plan does not need thousands of stocks. A dozen or more provides adequate diversity. A nation as diverse and as large as the USA has plenty of diversity built-in. But distilled down to the state level, local priorities may be biased by local enterprise.
On the post: Verizon Wireless Tells 'Price Sensitive' Customers It Doesn't Want Them, Declares It Doesn't Need To Truly Compete
Re: Re: Don't Agree
You're example is a fixed broadband. That is relatively commoditized, but this article is wireless. I'm not clear if we're on the same page or not. But there is more to wireless competition (and fixed) than just price.
Some key differentiators for wireless:
- network coverage footprint
- speeds across that footprint
- customer service quality
- customer service wait times
- retail, brick and mortar presence
- device availability, exclusivity
- Free included apps, or even better, lack of those apps
- Faster OS updates for Android phones
- SIM locking phones or not
- Offer subsidized model, or not with discount (like T-Mo)
- content exclusivity (VZW has NFL)
- international roaming inclusion
- wifi offload inclusion
- better, simpler billing
- better bundles, family plan
- integration with IoT
- etc, etc.
If a carrier got all the above right for me, I'd gladly pay them multiples of the cheapest offer. Heck, I pay AT&T about 3X for my AT&T lines versus what I pay Republic for my 1 line there. There's a reason.
On the post: Stanford Prison Experiment Psychologist: You're Never Going To Get Laid, You Game-Playing, Porn-Watching Fat-Asses
Re:
I think you may mean "adapting" or changing our culture.
Because evolution is a much slower process, takes millenia, and requires those "less fit" to not reproduce and/or die. Because of our healthcare and our somewhat monogamous family structure, many of the "less fit" take their turn at reproduction. I'm not sure how humans are likely to evolve. It seems that natural selection has been "denaturalized" by humans. Our rates of reproduction are also odd, such as 8 children per woman in Uganda to the sub 2/per rates we see in developed nations.
On the post: To The NSA, A Reporter Covering Al Qaeda Looks Identical To An Al Qaeda Member
Re:
On the post: Verizon Wireless Tells 'Price Sensitive' Customers It Doesn't Want Them, Declares It Doesn't Need To Truly Compete
Don't Agree
Let's abstract it, and not talk about VZW and Tmo at all.
Businesses do NOT have to compete on price. Not at all. Apple doesn't, Faberge doesn't, Nike doesn't, LL Bean doesn't, etc.
You can compete on a number of qualities depending on the product. Yes, price will always play a role, but customers have proven that they will choose a higher priced product if other factors are considered superior. Quality, differentiation, new features, exclusivity, location, speed, service, cachet, brand, accessibility, privacy...these are all features that could affect the price consumers are willing to pay for a product.
Harvard's Michael Porter, a leading authority on competitive strategy and competitiveness, pretty much laid out my point in 1980:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter%27s_generic_strategies
He outlined three specific concepts for companies to succeed, only one of these was price. While I don't accept his argument as 100% law, his arguments are pretty useful to disabuse the notion that competition MUST always be on price.
Frankly, the entire economy would be a race to the bottom if it were so. There would be little differentiation, no innovation, and little quality if your hypothesis from this article were correct. It would be a sad, sad outcome.
On the post: Banks Now Eyeing Cell Phone Metadata To Determine Your Loan Risk
The Risk Here Is...
You still get lumped in with the baddies. Tough.
Paying higher interest rates because you "used your phone wrong" seems unfair.
On the post: Huge Win: Appeals Court Says NSA's Bulk Phone Records Collection Not Actually Authorized By PATRIOT Act
Snowden: Hero
Snowden's a fucking hero.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Typical of liberals
Relevance?
And please don't pull that "libs wanna control your life" 'tude in a week when the Right at SCOTUS is trying to control who can marry whom.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
A Little Pregnant
It's not extreme. Either you have NN, or you don't. A "little bit of a walled garden" is immediately 100% NOT a neutral network.
That's the funny thing about stuff like NN, pregnancy, binary bits. You either got it, or you don't.
I'm actually not dead-against Internet.org, but I sure don't think it offers NN. I think it *could* be OK, so long as the walled garden content providers PAY the carrier the same rate per MB to carry the data to the customers as the customers would pay for any other content, AND the users are in no way blocked from other content. This would make it like 1-800 phone numbers where the businesses pay the toll.
On the post: Government Agencies Love Expanding E-ZPass Coverage; Handling Data Responsibly, Not So Much
Re: Simple solution
Oh. And cell phone tracking. And connected cars, and "Black box" functionality in some cars. And credit card receipts when you transact at your destination.
And probably much more.
On the post: Government Agencies Love Expanding E-ZPass Coverage; Handling Data Responsibly, Not So Much
Tripod
On the post: DailyDirt: No More Teaching To The Test?
Re:
"Teaching to the test" is negative because the focus is on creating the appearance of an education, but the kids may have no clue how to apply that lesson to real world situations.
On the post: Canada Extends Copyright Terms, Finally Giving Musicians Who Released Works More Than 50 Years Ago A Reason To Create
Re:
Actually, what they are saying/doing is more like:
"We're still making money of 0.03% of this content, so we have to restrict your access to ALL of it until the gravy train stops."
They are salting the fields. Basically, willing to block access to tremendous amounts of content as collateral damage in their quest for greed-fueled profiteering.
And the irony is the point you made, that this song actually achieved greater fame, profit, joy-delivery, etc. ONLY when derivatives of it were made by Donovan and others. This very song that Music Canada's spokesdouche brought up shows the value of derivative content can often exceed the original.
Also, the public good is not only measured in dollars for the economy. Songs in the public domain can offer $ millions in intangible value (economically called consumer surplus.) Basically, if we enjoy it for free, that is still a good thing, whether it registers in GDP or not.
On the post: Canada Extends Copyright Terms, Finally Giving Musicians Who Released Works More Than 50 Years Ago A Reason To Create
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Rich Kulasiec @0528)
Now we know exactly where they are that we cannot access them.
On the post: The Many Ways In Which A Google-Powered Mobile Network Could Be A Game Changer
Re: So you missed the boat on hardware
The OnePlus One is currently the darling phone for people who want this kind of approach.
Fact is, almost nobody does it, though, because the US carriers subsidize their phones, and then make users "pay back" that subsidy in the monthly bill -- whether you bought their cheap phone or your own full-price phone. Thus, most people take the cheaper carrier-tweaked phone.
It is true that a Google MVNO will reduce the power of the subsidy in controlling phones. They will expect people to buy their own Nexus 6 phone, and not subsidize. Of course, they aren't the first. T-Mo already offers this, as do numerous US MVNOs.
But, the Google MVNO will have very specific and unusual hardware, software, and radio requirements. Both Sprint and T-Mo USA have oddball frequencies not consistent with the rest of the world. That doesn't make the combined network an attractive target for hundreds of phone makers. It requires a bespoke phone, which would not ship in high volumes for two reasons: your assertion that there would be hundreds of vendors, and the fact that Google has indicated it is not seeking large scale.
On the post: Once Again, John Oliver Covers A Techdirt Topic: This Time, It's Patent Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Any other links to the video?
Wait...we were still talking in UK English, right?
Whatever, I've gotta go get me mum a caravan.
Next >>