"...Abundance of bandwidth. When's the last time you butted up against the limits of water in your home? Or power? Other than due to a reaction to natural occurrences (like a heatwave, for instance), when was the last time your power company "throttled back" your electricity or water? Does AT&T or Time Warner behave this way?...."
DH - you clearly don't live in the North East (US) do you?
Your caveat "due natural occurrences" is misleading. In a heatwave there is not less electricity. There is more demand. There may be so much demand that the power station has rolling brown-outs - aka throttled access. Peak demand is peak demand. In the ISP world its by time of day. In electric/gas world it's by the time of year (and then by the time of day).
In terms of water, Rusty and lead infiltrated water is the norm due to old infrastructure. Rust occurs when there is heavy flooding - or heavy usage. That's a QOS issue. Old infrastructure is old infrastructure. In the water world you can get away with 75 year-old pipes. In the ISP world 10 year-old pipes would be pushing it.
It may not be an exact match - but it's pretty damn close.
Having said that, I would think that the large ISP would want to stay away from a utility model, if nothing else because it become too easy a target for the municipalities to take control.
The large ISPs DON'T want municipality run Internet. But if you look like a utility and smell like a utility - all of the sudden you're a quasi-governmental agency.
Another way to do this is throttle (in a multiplexing scheme) the connection. If I expect 200 people are going to connect to my little router so that I can share Internet access, and I want to be "fair" to everyone while also letting everyone on, I can only promise a slow connection - or purchase more equipment/connections.
If half my clients a willing to pay a bit more, I can move them to a second faster/less congested router. (Hence dialup vs dsl vs cable vs T1 vs FiOS)
For a given speed/capacity - bandwidth is most definitely NOT an infinite resource. I can lower the data rate to allow more people, or up the data rate if I keep the number of connections down. Sure the cost to operate in either method is the same - but number of bytes/second that you can handle is fixed.
"...You see utilities are not an infinite good like bandwidth is..."
Fiber has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Copper has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Microwave has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Switching technologies have fixed max number of switches per second. Faster technology costs more. Takes more expertise to setup (which has a cost associated with it). When they break (and they do) it costs more to replace. It all runs on electricity - electricity costs money. Add another pipe - it takes more electricity to make it work.
Those are all real costs that can be broken down by usage. You're not going to light up the "dark fiber" until your revenue can support it.
"...people who use very little broadband expect to pay less and people who use a whole lot may complain, but in their hearts know they are going to pay more than somebody who reads e-mail once a week...."
I don't see where he's saying subscribers "want" to pay more. I see where he says subscribers will "expect" to pay less when they use less and pay more when they use more - but "expecting" has nothing to do with "wanting".
I expect to get a ticket when I fly by a highway patrol car doing 30 over. I certainly don't want that ticket.
Maybe I need to drink more TD cool-aid. I'm just not seeing the issue here.
This Washington DC NFL Football Team whom we will never again mention by name - should get - exactly - what they ask for. Not what they want mind you - what they ask for.
This goes for the likes of Fox News which doesn't want link-backs from Google
All Newspapers which don't want their RSS feeds to be incorporated into RSS Feed aggregators.
Media Hore Specialist Sarah Palin who doesn't want be talked about in the Press.
News black-out. That's what they are asking for. We know what they want is control over the message - not lack of message. But I suggest we give them exactly what they ask for - and we shall never speak of them again.....
We as enforcers of this movement must resist the temptation to peak, speak, or repeat any of the above. I know train-wrecks are hard not to look at - but be strong! The less interest they generate, the less there will be to hear about them. And soon it will just be "remember that crazy chick from Alaska? What was her name?" Ahhh... that will be the day!
I would probably consider working with a "copy cat" manufacture, not to dissuade them from using a my design, but to use them as a form of market research. Have the start with my design... change up some of the detailing and see how it impacts sales/selection. If the options change fast enough the "copy" company never gets true traction. Meanwhile I can incorporate the proven design changes back into my main line.
Re: Re: Well, I suppose this can be considered good news.
Isn't that the point.
Scania is not protecting the concept of "The Truck". It's protecting its design. As a non-truck person with a 4-year old who loves trucks and truck books, even I can spot the unique design of Scania.
A carbon-copy of the design (the looks and feel) is precisely what Scania needs to protect. Compare performance to other manufactures and I would venture to guess that that they are not blowing the competition away in HP or gas mileage or emmissions, or power plant options.
If it's the design they want to protect, and the Chinese manufacture is willing to change without any monetary (or legal) incentive, why are you being so negative about the story?
You realize that this the case today. Hotmail has no control over its users for such uses.
Every web host, every email provider, every ISP, every search engine is guilty by association (based on your "control" statement).
There is no ability to "control" how users use an open system. There is no safe place on the Internet.
What you're saying is that you're okay with dismantling the Internet because bad people use it.
If that is the case, and you are okay with having your email/Internet cut off until it can be made safe and crime-free, then in all honestly you should, based on your stated principle, give it up.
The fact that you're getting a lot of play from the social sites is great for you, but it also is the type of site that you've created - a dynamic site with regular updates. Updates resonate with someone and they share it with their friends, friends who are also likely to have the story resonate with them.
This means you've got a great site for "in the now".
It would be interesting to see if your historic stories (things you've written about months or years ago) - if the users who hit them today are coming from Google search or more personal referrals.
My guess would be that Google drives users to your older content while the social networks drive users to your most recent posts.
After all - when you want to look something up, do you ping your buddies and wait for a response, or do you just "Google it"? Personally I can't see myself ever searching for a website via Facebook (though I guess it's possible).
On the flip side, if you find a great topic of conversation, I bet you share it with all your buddies via your favorite social network.
One more note. I'm "facebooked out". It seems many of the people who made Facebook a part of their lives early on - also have moved on. Not sure what that means, if anything, for the future of social networks.
There are two separate questions that are muddled together.
1. Can I make money, possibly more money, if I give my core product away and instead charge for true "rare" items.
2. Given a choice, will more people choose to be cheapskates or generous?
#1 has been proven - and you can indeed make money, maybe more money, by giving your songs, software, writing, xyz, away.
#2 ???... I don't know. I'm a big cheap-skate. I will always take Hulu over cable. And I will take Hulu basic over Hulu Plus. And when I can't get the content I want for free on Hulu I'll look elsewhere. No matter how sweet the deal, I'm not paying for access to TV shows.
There are plenty of generous people. And there are plenty of fanatics. And combined means there is plenty of money to be made.
But when people are given the choice, the statement "People just want free stuff", I suspect, is generally true.
"...Maybe not a right but an expectation, a good will effort...There is a contract between the American people and corporate America. ... Companies have been breaking that contract with Americans..."
WOW. Are you serious? You're expecting business to honor and stay true to "nonenforceable implied unwritten contracts"?
You're so right. Nothing makes sense more than protectionism, inflated wages, and forcing US companies to be less competitive in the global economy. Why those bastards who have managed keep their jobs, even in this recession, have the gull to think that companies are in business to make money and maximize profits!
Obviously the only reason that a company should be allowed to operate in the US is to employ US citizens. And if those companies who are in business to employ people are struggling, then clearly the US government must subsidize them!
What is missing from Mike's article (unless I'm just reading it too fast) are the names/links to the sites in question. I like Mike's reporting, but there should be some due-diligence before rushing the blog post out.
Murdoch has to balance what he "thinks" with what he knows he has to spin on behalf of his company. The part you agree with is the part that he "thinks". The part you disagree with is the part he is spinning.
News Corp will be trying to negotiate and convince its rivals to follow suite. That requires spin - and commitment.
The rivals know that it's spin, but if they believe News Corp is committed, then it becomes a price-fixing game. When Murdoch winks, everyone will increase rates 10% at about the same time and close off more of the "free" stuff.
That's my prediction anyway. I don't think it will work - but if News Corp wants to keep its current cash flow they may not have a lot of options.
I just took my boy from Providence to Orlando (and back) and in both Airports travlers with children did not have to go through the scanners. In fact we went through an express lane with the standard older technology. An no pat downs.
Not saying it didn't happen. I am saying it didn't happen to me on a recent trip.
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics
I'm not about to defend them on that front!
-CF
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Re:
DH - you clearly don't live in the North East (US) do you?
Your caveat "due natural occurrences" is misleading. In a heatwave there is not less electricity. There is more demand. There may be so much demand that the power station has rolling brown-outs - aka throttled access. Peak demand is peak demand. In the ISP world its by time of day. In electric/gas world it's by the time of year (and then by the time of day).
In terms of water, Rusty and lead infiltrated water is the norm due to old infrastructure. Rust occurs when there is heavy flooding - or heavy usage. That's a QOS issue. Old infrastructure is old infrastructure. In the water world you can get away with 75 year-old pipes. In the ISP world 10 year-old pipes would be pushing it.
It may not be an exact match - but it's pretty damn close.
Having said that, I would think that the large ISP would want to stay away from a utility model, if nothing else because it become too easy a target for the municipalities to take control.
The large ISPs DON'T want municipality run Internet. But if you look like a utility and smell like a utility - all of the sudden you're a quasi-governmental agency.
-CF
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Re: Economics
If half my clients a willing to pay a bit more, I can move them to a second faster/less congested router. (Hence dialup vs dsl vs cable vs T1 vs FiOS)
For a given speed/capacity - bandwidth is most definitely NOT an infinite resource. I can lower the data rate to allow more people, or up the data rate if I keep the number of connections down. Sure the cost to operate in either method is the same - but number of bytes/second that you can handle is fixed.
-CF
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Re: Economics
Fiber has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Copper has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Microwave has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Switching technologies have fixed max number of switches per second. Faster technology costs more. Takes more expertise to setup (which has a cost associated with it). When they break (and they do) it costs more to replace. It all runs on electricity - electricity costs money. Add another pipe - it takes more electricity to make it work.
Those are all real costs that can be broken down by usage. You're not going to light up the "dark fiber" until your revenue can support it.
So.... How is bandwidth an infinite good?
-CF
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Hmm... I missed it...
I don't see where he's saying subscribers "want" to pay more. I see where he says subscribers will "expect" to pay less when they use less and pay more when they use more - but "expecting" has nothing to do with "wanting".
I expect to get a ticket when I fly by a highway patrol car doing 30 over. I certainly don't want that ticket.
Maybe I need to drink more TD cool-aid. I'm just not seeing the issue here.
-CF
On the post: Washington DC Football Team Who Shall Remain Nameless Won't Let Blogs Use Name Without Permission
Give'm what the ask for!
This goes for the likes of Fox News which doesn't want link-backs from Google
All Newspapers which don't want their RSS feeds to be incorporated into RSS Feed aggregators.
Media Hore Specialist Sarah Palin who doesn't want be talked about in the Press.
News black-out. That's what they are asking for. We know what they want is control over the message - not lack of message. But I suggest we give them exactly what they ask for - and we shall never speak of them again.....
We as enforcers of this movement must resist the temptation to peak, speak, or repeat any of the above. I know train-wrecks are hard not to look at - but be strong! The less interest they generate, the less there will be to hear about them. And soon it will just be "remember that crazy chick from Alaska? What was her name?" Ahhh... that will be the day!
-CF
On the post: Truck Maker Discovers Chinese Knockoff Company; Helps It Come Up With Its Own Design
If I were a truck manufacture
-CF
On the post: Truck Maker Discovers Chinese Knockoff Company; Helps It Come Up With Its Own Design
Re: Re: Well, I suppose this can be considered good news.
Scania is not protecting the concept of "The Truck". It's protecting its design. As a non-truck person with a 4-year old who loves trucks and truck books, even I can spot the unique design of Scania.
A carbon-copy of the design (the looks and feel) is precisely what Scania needs to protect. Compare performance to other manufactures and I would venture to guess that that they are not blowing the competition away in HP or gas mileage or emmissions, or power plant options.
If it's the design they want to protect, and the Chinese manufacture is willing to change without any monetary (or legal) incentive, why are you being so negative about the story?
-CF
On the post: Homeland Security Won't Even Admit Whether Or Not It Seized Mooo.com, Taking Down 84,000 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re:
Every web host, every email provider, every ISP, every search engine is guilty by association (based on your "control" statement).
There is no ability to "control" how users use an open system. There is no safe place on the Internet.
What you're saying is that you're okay with dismantling the Internet because bad people use it.
If that is the case, and you are okay with having your email/Internet cut off until it can be made safe and crime-free, then in all honestly you should, based on your stated principle, give it up.
-CF
On the post: Homeland Security Won't Even Admit Whether Or Not It Seized Mooo.com, Taking Down 84,000 Innocent Sites
Re: Wildcard setup is the smoking gun
On the post: Homeland Security Won't Even Admit Whether Or Not It Seized Mooo.com, Taking Down 84,000 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re:
The feds wouldn't seize the entire complex because there "might be" a connection. The leases would continue until a court order.
Keep playing.
-CF
On the post: Anyone Notice That Sites Don't Have To Rely On Google So Much For Traffic Any More?
Search vs Referral
This means you've got a great site for "in the now".
It would be interesting to see if your historic stories (things you've written about months or years ago) - if the users who hit them today are coming from Google search or more personal referrals.
My guess would be that Google drives users to your older content while the social networks drive users to your most recent posts.
After all - when you want to look something up, do you ping your buddies and wait for a response, or do you just "Google it"? Personally I can't see myself ever searching for a website via Facebook (though I guess it's possible).
On the flip side, if you find a great topic of conversation, I bet you share it with all your buddies via your favorite social network.
One more note. I'm "facebooked out". It seems many of the people who made Facebook a part of their lives early on - also have moved on. Not sure what that means, if anything, for the future of social networks.
-CF
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Re: Re: Free sodomy!
There are two separate questions that are muddled together.
1. Can I make money, possibly more money, if I give my core product away and instead charge for true "rare" items.
2. Given a choice, will more people choose to be cheapskates or generous?
#1 has been proven - and you can indeed make money, maybe more money, by giving your songs, software, writing, xyz, away.
#2 ???... I don't know. I'm a big cheap-skate. I will always take Hulu over cable. And I will take Hulu basic over Hulu Plus. And when I can't get the content I want for free on Hulu I'll look elsewhere. No matter how sweet the deal, I'm not paying for access to TV shows.
There are plenty of generous people. And there are plenty of fanatics. And combined means there is plenty of money to be made.
But when people are given the choice, the statement "People just want free stuff", I suspect, is generally true.
-CF
On the post: Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?
A Potential (long term) Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network
Wifi Phones being those that support 802.11b/g/n (etc) such as the Iphone and Android
Skype (or other IP based phone service).
Short term solution? Punt.
-CF
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re:
WOW. Are you serious? You're expecting business to honor and stay true to "nonenforceable implied unwritten contracts"?
Why would you even admit to such an absurd thing?
-CF
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
Possibly. .....possibly...... .....maybe....
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Good
Obviously the only reason that a company should be allowed to operate in the US is to employ US citizens. And if those companies who are in business to employ people are struggling, then clearly the US government must subsidize them!
-CF
On the post: Who Needs COICA When Homeland Security Gets To Seize Domain Names?
Re: fake?
What is missing from Mike's article (unless I'm just reading it too fast) are the names/links to the sites in question. I like Mike's reporting, but there should be some due-diligence before rushing the blog post out.
-CF
On the post: James Murdoch: Hoping All Media Businesses Act Like Pay TV
Just Remember...
News Corp will be trying to negotiate and convince its rivals to follow suite. That requires spin - and commitment.
The rivals know that it's spin, but if they believe News Corp is committed, then it becomes a price-fixing game. When Murdoch winks, everyone will increase rates 10% at about the same time and close off more of the "free" stuff.
That's my prediction anyway. I don't think it will work - but if News Corp wants to keep its current cash flow they may not have a lot of options.
-CF
On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You
Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
I just took my boy from Providence to Orlando (and back) and in both Airports travlers with children did not have to go through the scanners. In fact we went through an express lane with the standard older technology. An no pat downs.
Not saying it didn't happen. I am saying it didn't happen to me on a recent trip.
-CF
Next >>