Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 246 posts

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#71

Post by gametheoretic »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #60
zw123456 wrote: post #49

I have tried posting this idea a couple of times before and have been roundly scolded, but oh well, here goes again. I think... that readers of this forum are ideally equipped to find a way around this problem. What I mean to say is that it is universally felt by everyone that they hate their broadband provider, phone company etc. Why can't we, the tech community come up with a competing technology? I know many have…

I guess the problem is that all of these (broadband provider, phone company) are regulated by the government. Once you have the government involved, forget about competition, the market won't fix. You have to fix politics.

Ah, but what is within reach of government regulation? Are they willing to, say, shoot down satellites?

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#72

Post by pyre »

catmanjan wrote: post #45
derleth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

>ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor... >We're also much less racist than Europe That's like comparing apples and oranges or countries and continents

> Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor...

I think it refers to enjoying the outdoors. E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Crest_Trail

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#73

Post by rralian »

gametheoretic wrote: post #66
marincounty wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how Comcast charges differnt rates for internet speeds, but at around 5:30 p.m., when people settling in after a hard day of work--the rate is reduced? My hope is Comcast is eventually split up by the government.

Do you think the government would rather deal with more ISPs or fewer, insofar as surveillance is concerned?

That's an interesting angle. My immediate thought was that it's different parts of the government making such decisions. But upon reflection I have no reason to believe NSA et al wouldn't try to influence such matters as they could.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#74

Post by rhizome »

001sky wrote: post #38
JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

> Then there were regulatory problems as the FCC tried to control deployment centrally while states and cities tended to view video dial tone as just another cable company to be taxed and regulated. That seems like the most egregious thing in the article: treating Internet-based video delivery as a cable company. The concept of local cable franchise monopolies is ridiculous enough to begin with, and the only possible…

They should be subject to regulation; they should not be granted monopolies. These are two entirely different concepts. The current system grants them monopolies, and fails to regulate them appropriately. This is exactly the wrong way round. But this is the problem with politicians: monopoly provides concentration of cash, and this can be tapped into far more efficiently from the perspective of political exploitation…

Actually, campaigns nowadays run on the concept of "bundlers," who are rich people who act as a funnel for their rich friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_...

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#75

Post by bane »

robzyb wrote: post #21
MichaelApproved wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got to be more specific when you say "there" or at least mention what you found wrong. The US is a large country with vast differences between the cities. Your experience in one area could be dramatically different from another area in the US.

I understand that a significant majority of the United States' healthcare system is lacklustre. I understand that a significant majority of the United States' only offer limited annual leave (compared to Australia's 4 weeks). I understand that a significant majority of the United States' suffers from an extremely high murder rate for a 1st world country. This is a sample of why I don't want to live in the US, even th…

Let's do one for another country, say Korea.

- I understand that a significant majority of Korea's healthcare system is lacklustre, but cheap.

- I understand that a significant majority of Korea's only offer limited annual leave (1 week) (compared to Australia's 4 weeks).

- I understand that a significant majority of Korea suffers from an extremely suicide rate for a 1st world country.

This is a sample of why I don't want to live in South Korea even though they have the fastest, cheapest internet on Earth.

Or France

- I understand that a significant majority of France's healthcare system is quite good, but you pay out the nose for it in taxes even if you don't ever use it.

- I understand that a significant majority of the French support industry and infrastructure choking union strikes over tiny contract details

- I understand that a significant majority of France suffers from an extremely high racial segregation and discrimination problem

This is a sample of why I don't want to live in France even though they have the best cuisine on Earth.

Or Australia

- I understand that a significant majority of the Australia's healthcare system is lacklustre.

- I understand that a significant majority of Australians still support the Aboriginal segregation and forced adoption laws.

- I understand that Australia not only has a slow internet, but widespread and regular censorship of what sites citizens can go to.

- I understand that Australia doesn't even offer free speech protection.

This is a sample of why I don't want to live in Australia, even though it has nice weather.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#76

Post by brownbat »

It took fierce competition to even get broadband companies to advertise what they are offering. I had to deal with a very small local monopoly in Western Maryland that just advertised "faster than dial up," had typical pings of over 200. It was thick on the local board, had a deal with local government as the sole authorized supplier in the county.

Now I'm in a different part of the country, can get FiOS, but while Verizon's service always delivers over 50 Mbps on speedtest sites, it often chokes on Youtube or Netflix. When that happens, there's no simple way to determine if it's the provider or some random provisioner in the middle. This is the future of getting screwed by telecoms: worthless metrics and plausible deniability for service degradation.

I happened to get a deal by calling all the providers in the area, then playing their offers off of each other. I recommend everyone does this every few months. But the fact that was so easy doesn't really make me feel very comfortable. If they can haggle, it just signals how much rent they're charging from all the unwary customers.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#77

Post by karamazov »

catmanjan wrote: post #45
derleth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

>ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor... >We're also much less racist than Europe That's like comparing apples and oranges or countries and continents

The entirety of the US is more comparable to Europe as a whole than to any individual European country.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#78

Post by mgkimsal »

ryanSrich wrote: post #30
michaelochurch wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact. Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still socially acceptable from US employers. Or, he might have children who will have to be educated someday, and see that a system that combines astronomical tuition plu…

> He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact. I'm not disagreeing with you I just need help understanding. I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee ( > Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still social…

"I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee (How about just being able to pay that 'small fee' without having it tied to an 'employer'? The 'employer' is normally paying a lot more than your share, so this 'benefit' just means craploads more money going to the insurance company instead of your pocket to make your own decisions with.

"Covers the cost in full"? Really? Rarely, unless it's something extremely basic, and you've got some excellent plan with an extremely low deductible. Which it sounds like you might - for that $200 you're paying, the employer is probably kicking in another $600+ (wild estimate based on past experience and discussions with colleagues).

Being able to have basic medical necessities provided to you should not be dependent on whether you're 'employable' (and 'employed') at any particular moment in time.

"Employer-provided" health insurance is one of the worst aspects of the mess that is healthcare in the US.

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#79

Post by vacri »

derleth wrote: post #42
catmanjan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I still haven't heard any arguments _for_ a life in America other than "it isn't all bad" or "it isn't as bad as Hollywood makes it look".

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

The functional difference between free speech in Australia and the United States isn't that strong. On the idealistic part of the spectrum, the US does win, but in terms of how it affects your life, they're pretty comparable. It is interesting to note that Australia is consistently rated superior to the US on the Press Freedom Index, and both are outscored by a passel of European countries.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

Re: The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen (2007)

#80

Post by lotharbot »

catmanjan wrote: post #45
derleth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robust free speech protections, ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world, and the ability to enter industries that don't exist to the same extent elsewhere. We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

>ability to rough it in a country that's still in the first world Does rough it mean suffer? I don't know if that's a point in favor... >We're also much less racist than Europe That's like comparing apples and oranges or countries and continents

> "Does rough it mean suffer?"

With a few seconds on your favorite search engine, you could discover that "rough it" is an idiom commonly used to refer to camping in a nature-heavy setting (without electricity/plumbing.)

Post reply on HN