Let me say this simple thing: there is no surprise
greater than the first call on arriving in Europe, a
shock of clarity unmatched here. That reception
doesn't go away, whether in the mountains, or the
metro. My limping unlocked mobil, which works with
local sim cards all over Europe, suddenly b
FIOS is only part of the answer. It's not necessary to rewire where
there are copper lines. As long as the lines aren't damaged, new
hardware can be installed to boost the DSL to VDSL without digging and
laying the fiber-optic lines. It's possible to get speeds of 20Mbps on
copper with new hard
As far as I can determine, the push for FIOS exclusively is another excuse
to raise rates through obfuscation. There can very fast broadband--fast
enough to stream movies--on both copper and fiber. No more FUD.
OK, I'll come clean. It absolutely sucks to maintain a twisted-pair
(not even coax)
> The next thing you'll want to do is nationalize the network.
>
> That ALWAYS works well.
Who said anything about nationalization? How about a little
"Eurosocialist" regulation? I'd be happy to have some of their
broadband service, and their Eurosocialist prices.
By the way, when the network
There is that alternative then we end up paying for it twice, through
subscription and then through government subsidy.
Stewart
At 07:01 AM 3/27/2008, you wrote:
Who said anything about nationalization? How about a little
"Eurosocialist" regulation? I'd be happy to have some of their
broadb
Yes, but Verizon (and others) needs to develop a way to power phones
indefinitely when the electric grid goes down, i.e., with one big generator at
the central office or something else that works as well. What's going to
happen the first time there is a fire in a location where no phones are wo
>Who said anything about nationalization? How about a little
>"Eurosocialist" regulation? I'd be happy to have some of their
>broadband service, and their Eurosocialist prices.
When A technological business gets taken over by non-technologists out to
make a quick buck this is what happens. Not
>Yes it's a huge risk, and telcos aren't generally known for taking
>risks. But a fiber network just makes sense, long-term.
You should note that Verizon is an exception in the industry and
Verizon's efforts to upgrade their network to fiber has been seen
negatively by Wall Street.
As technolo
At 9:22 AM -0400 3/27/08, Tom Piwowar wrote:
>Yes it's a huge risk, and telcos aren't generally known for taking
risks. But a fiber network just makes sense, long-term.
You should note that Verizon is an exception in the industry and
Verizon's efforts to upgrade their network to fiber has b
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
So not only are
large numbers of Americans being evicted from their homes,
Mostly because they could not afford the home on the terms they agreed
to and thus never should have purchased them. I can not afford a
Rolls Royce, and no low teaser
> If Eurosocialism is so great, why have more open economies out
> performed them over the long term for so long?
Neither Eurosocialism nor capitalism its without its shortcomings, but
to argue that the American cultural, economic and social systems have
out performed other western nations, over
>
> Mostly because they could not afford the home on the terms they
> agreed
> to and thus never should have purchased them.
Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's
can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before
(is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, o
>
> That delivers care of sufficient quality (to those who can pay) that
>
> folks come here to get what they can not get from their national
> systems. Did you read the recent study about how many women in labor
>
> had to be turned away from British maternity wards for lack of beds?
>
>
> contaminated food stuffs,
Because those pesky consumers have largely valued low price above
every other consideration.
Makes about as much sense as the idea that smokers freely
express their preference when buying cigarettes. There
is no free choice in the face of inadequate information
and m
http://www.cguys.org/ **
*
10 years is hardly the long term wrt economies.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Ralph wrote:
If Eurosocialism is so great, why have more open economies out
performed them over the long term for so long?
Neither Eurosocialism nor capitalism its without its shortcomings, but
to argue that the Ameri
Both obviously. A mortgage contract has two parties.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Paul Meyer wrote:
Mostly because they could not afford the home on the terms they
agreed
to and thus never should have purchased them.
Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's
can and cannot affor
"Both obviously. A mortgage contract has two parties."
Maybe yes, but there's more.
During the past several years, there have been three, not two, parties to the
mortgage. Only two are present at closing, but that third is really calling the
shots.
In days of yore, banks (or other financia
To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is
no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the
procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being
the exception where there is a shortage and the supply of which by law
can not be
Sure. There are the folks that buy Windows, the folks that sell
Windows, and Microsoft.
That tracks with ignorance, greed, and corporate over reaching.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Daniel Else wrote:
So, I would suggest that all 3 acted irresponsibly.
Now, how can we link this thread to com
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote:
>To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is
>no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the
>procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being
And those that can't
>So, I would suggest that all 3 acted irresponsibly.
>Now, how can we link this thread to computers?
What we are groping to understand is market dynamics in general, using
analogic thinking to better understand the logic behind what the telco's
managers are doing or not doing with broadband. So
>I do not understand the idea that every improvement, no matter how
>expensive, must be affordable by all, and if not some injustice has
>occurred.
I do not understand your belief that money is the criterion to use to
determine who lives and who dies. Why not favor those with higher IQs?
Why
> Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's
> can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before
> (is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, or both?)
> Seems a little simplistic to pin it on home buyers,
> especially since they have the least resources and
> no surf
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeff Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's
> > can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before
> > (is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, or both?)
> > Seems a little simplistic to pin
Perhaps someone can confirm or deny...I had read that 65% or in that area of
foreclosures were unoccupied...investments to turn that went bad. Not Joe
Blow and 2.5 kids.
Mike
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:24 PM, John DeCarlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeff Wright
John--I'm not giving the banks a pass on this, but I've grown weary of the
violin strings played for adults who didn't even begin to have the resources
or were in any sort of position to buy a house, but absolutely had to have a
house, well, because everyone else was getting one. If you want to ma
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
I do not understand your belief that money is the criterion to use to
determine who lives and who dies. Why not favor those with higher IQs?
Why not favor those who lead saintly lives? Why not favor one race
over
another? Why not favor one sex ov
Did I say that only money matters?
What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets
what.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
I do not understand the idea that every improvement, no matter how
expensive, must be affordable by all, and if not some injustice has
Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No
religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's
hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care.
The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to pay
for care, which WILL result in gov
In your scenario, people are either middle-class (high, medium, or
low) or charity cases. The truth is a large portion of the U.S. is
poor: due to age, education, unemployment, immigration status,
whatever. Some of these people work, own cars, and some even own
their own homes. Out of to pride,
So is it the governments job to save those in need of help the task of
asking for help?
Should the government make all our health choices for us? Many people
with insurance choose to avoid presenting themselves for care for a
variety of reasons and become a statistic. Is that a government
Every nation rations health care, by some criteria. In Canada
everyone has the same health insurance. The rationing comes in with
Hospital care/procedures. Their hospitals are flat funded. Which
means if it is funded for 400 CT scans a year that is all it
performs. The Doctors then have to
The plain truth is that private charity and religious foundations
can't possibly cope with the health care needs of people without
insurance or who have inadequate health insurance. There are too
many people needing too much care--even simple things like having a
tooth pulled--let alone th
I think that for starters we have a different definition of "rationed"
This is from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rationed
Verb
S: (v) ration (restrict the consumption of a relatively scarce
commodity, as during war) "Bread was rationed during the siege of the
city"
S: (v) ration
What is sacrosanct about adults? The history books are full of
boneheaded, greedy, malicious, absurd, murderous etc. things that ADULTS
have done. Other than Lizzie Borden, I can't think of too many children
who have created the calamities that humanity has experienced.
The advantage of coll
>What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets
>what.
Why do we need a government? Imagine what your school would be like if no
one was in charge. Each class would make its own rules. Who gets to use
the gym if two classes want to use it at the same time? Who would clean
>Alternatively how about we let the market work - and couple the
>consumption of health care to payment for healthcare. Then we will
>see a rationalized, but not rationed approach to healthcare.
The NRA says "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." So here you
are setting up a process t
> I'm not willing to accept this machinery of death.
>
> I'm also not willing to accept crummy and expensive broadband.
I'm confused here. Who's killing whom? Is this when robots become
sentient, enslave mankind and viciously take over the world? If it weren't
for the cheap and ultra high spee
>What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets
>what.
Government in the United States does decide who gets what:
Government decided when, what, where you buy, how much you pay, content of
Alcohol.
Government decides what you can and cannot smoke...legal tobacco, illegal,
w
y the drug from overseas because of the cost, they wouldn't let him
buy any with his own money and import it.
Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than the
alternatives.
Ellen H.
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Piwowar" <[EMAIL PROTE
Not specifically about health care, but I heard something this
morning that indicates to me the world is going to end soon.
I was listening to Ben Stein, (An avowed capitalist with a capital C)
and he called for the re regulation of the American Airline Industry.
That along with the floods in
Who does, or does not, get to keep bees (see the last item on the
list) is beside the point.
Organization is the main point.
DRIVING was mentioned on this list. You wouldn't have interstate
highways, for example, without a coast-to-coast government ORGANIZING
the thing, to get it built in
>Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than the
>alternatives.
Your position defies logic. The ability to point out situations that are
worse than ours does nothing to support any assertion that our situation
is acceptable.
***
It is also a fine balancing act.
These other countries have tried to balance it all. Not perfect mind
you but balance.
My in-laws live in Canada. Not a lot of income mind you but they
both worked very hard to be where they are today. They have free
health care and free prescriptions. They
>The plain truth is that private charity and religious foundations
>can't possibly cope with the health care needs of people without
>insurance or who have inadequate health insurance. There are too
>many people needing too much care
1) Reminder that the topic is broadband and this is the C
Back to focusing on technology...
I recommend to you:
"Motorola insider tells all about the fall of a technology icon"
www.engadget.com/2008/03/26/motorola-insider-tells-all-about-the-fall-of-a-
technology-icon/
"In researching the myriad claims raised in this letter -- which we
believe to be t
Tom,
I'm not disagreeing with you on this but could you elaborate on the
"broadband trickery" you refer to? You have more access to information
on this subject than a lot of us.
db
Tom Piwowar wrote:
...
Just like the broadband guys are trying to trick us into believing that
there is no
>I'm not disagreeing with you on this but could you elaborate on the
>"broadband trickery" you refer to?
We had this discussion recently. It is greedy corporations selling the
false idea that bandwidth is a scarce resource so that they can bid up
its price. This is what Enron did with electric
Tom;
If you don't think (fresh) water is a scarce resource I really don't
know what to say. The US water table is steadily dropping due to over
use from inefficient agriculture and domestic use made possible by
governments not charging what the water is worth. Water is the
classic commo
Talk to the states of Alabama, Georgia and Florida about this
subject. it is not pretty.
Georgia just recently tried to reclaim about 2 miles of TN in a
border dispute that was deemed settled until it was realized it would
get the state of Georgia more water resources, but take away from TN.
not buy the drug from overseas because of the cost, they wouldn't let
> him
> buy any with his own money and import it.
>
> Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than
> the
> alternatives.
>
> Ellen H.
>
>
> - Or
ent.
> >
> > Australia? One of my pals died there because not only would the
> > government
> > not buy the drug from overseas because of the cost, they wouldn't
> let
> > him
> > buy any with his own money and impor
It is interesting that many of the drug companies we are most
familiar with have European connections. (Bayer aspirin)
Part of the availability is FDA refusal to OK these drugs.
The EU equivalent allows drugs on the market quicker. There are many
drugs on the market over there that have not
>If you don't think (fresh) water is a scarce resource I really don't
>know what to say. The US water table is steadily dropping due to over
>use from inefficient agriculture and domestic use made possible by
>governments not charging what the water is worth.
You contradict yourself. You cl
>Talk to the states of Alabama, Georgia and Florida about this
>subject. it is not pretty.
Pointing out a few, short-term exceptions does not disprove the general
rule.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rule
>The EU equivalent allows drugs on the market quicker. There are many
>drugs on the market over there that have not and cannot be marketed here.
European doctors are also more conservative in treatment. Once while
traveling in Holland one person in my party had a severe case of kidney
stones.
Tom;
Remember the old adage whiskey is for drinking, water for fighting
about?
Governments largely control access to water in the US. They charge
some customers a service fee for delivering that water via municipal
infrastructure, charge some others for general access. To my
knowledge
Many local governments run the water / waste water utilities, including
mine. The utility is difficult for us (small size with high per-user
costs) and I would agree that potable water is becoming threatened.
State and federal requirements add to our costs, for example requiring
us to treat well w
There's plenty of pie to go around but the broadband Internet providers
are greedy--and they're lying so they can gouge their customers. Mostly
they're afraid of becoming irrelevant, or obsolete when a new upstart
gives us better deals at half the price.
In Europe and Asia the speeds keep gett
The biggest difference between France (Any
European country) and the US in comparisons, is plums versus watermelons.
The density of people in France is much higher
than the density of our population.
When you get away from the coasts, the density is much less.
This handicaps any company want
>Why is the United States _so_far_behind_ in speeds, choices, prices???
>Time Warner is now regressing to metered service in Texas, just like the
>old-time metered dialup. American consumers don't know enough to demand
>better/more/cheaper service? Or there's just not enough competition,
>inste
Neither one is making money as it is.
Both of them had exclusive agreements with some content which made
choosing impossible,. (I for one have held off until this time)
Secondly they are competing against free radio as it is.
Why pay for radio when you can get it for free. Plus with the adv
> Again Europe has a much higher population density than the US. Not
> fully comparable. (Plus their regulations and rules are different)
>
That's the point: our regulations and rules should be more like the
rest of the world's.
I think it's that congress, the administration, and big business
I agree. The same thing is going on with the US economy. It's been
apparent to me for some time that what the US is doing isn't working for
the country as a whole but government won't change direction because of
the big business lobby and its focus on self interest/ short term
corporate int
>The density of people in France is much higher than the density of our
>population.
Americans are denser. One would have to be pretty dense to keep voting
for the same corrupt pols as they give away more and more of the country
to the utlta-rich. The French did get it right fixing a similar pro
Eric? Why so much for so little?
Any way I answer that is bound to reveal me for the greedy capitalist
that I am.
The short answer is labor costs, regulatory requirements, and network
maintenance overhead. If I can drive down any or all of those costs I
can increase profits and lower prices.
Tom if you are willing to live under their laws that is OK by me.
By the way all the personal intrusion laws you rail against are very
European in nature!!!
Stewart
At 05:31 PM 3/25/2008, you wrote:
>The density of people in France is much higher than the density of our
>population.
Americ
> In today's news we see the DOJ declaring that merging the only two
> satellite broadcasters into one would not be anticompetitive. I guess
> their logic is that a duopoly has been so anticompetitive that a
> monopoly
> could not be much worse?
>
> Yet one more example of why the USA is so far be
I agree with you.
Where I live it is country or gospel all the time.
Not what I want to listen too.
Thank God for PBS, but even that gets old sometimes.
Stewart
At 06:53 AM 3/26/2008, you wrote:
I see you're using National Association of Broadcasters logic: they don't
compete against us, wh
>I see you're using National Association of Broadcasters logic: they don't
>compete against us, which is why we lobbied so viciously to prevent the
>merger.
Can you show us one instance where a monopoly did not give us high
prices, low innovation, and few options? When we have to look at Europe
Are you saying the alternative with Steve Jobs is better
Stewart
At 08:08 AM 3/26/2008, you wrote:
I'm sure Jeff would be perfectly happy if the US were run by one big
corporation (probably with Bill Gates at its head).
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace ww
The biggest difference between France (Any European country) and the
US in comparisons, is plums versus watermelons.
The density of people in France is much higher than the density of
our population.
When you get away from the coasts, the density is much less.
This handicaps any company wa
> Can you show us one instance where a monopoly did not give us high
> prices, low innovation, and few options?
Certainly not the Postal Service.
It's not a monopoly. It's one entertainment option among many. Saying that
XM/Sirius is a monopoly is akin to arguing that WAMU is a monopoly because
The density of people in France is much higher than the density of
our population.
Overall, yes. But let me throw out some numbers, I'm looking at,
back of the envelope calculation, you understand, Verizon core
territory (DC, MD, VA, WV, PA, DE, NJ, NY and MA).
You understand we've sold off N
I like your math Eric, it coincides with the math the others have been doing.
Makes complete horse sense. :-)
Lets just look at density per sq/mi.
My state AL 84.83
Spain 231
France 295
La 102.59
Tx 79.6
The whole USA 80 (About 1/4 of Frances or Spains)
Yup makes perfect sense to me!
Stewa
Makes complete horse sense. :-)
Except you have 10 more people per square mile in France than I
do. Maybe they were on vacation when my numbers were collected.
:-)
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, ar
I used Wikipedia, for quick dirty facts.
Maybe someone went in and edited it. :-)
Stewart
At 10:48 PM 3/26/2008, you wrote:
Makes complete horse sense. :-)
Except you have 10 more people per square mile in France than I
do. Maybe they were on vacation when my numbers were collected.
:-)
I used Wikipedia, for quick dirty facts..
I rounded off.
:-)
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
**
>It's not a monopoly. It's one entertainment option among many. Saying that
>XM/Sirius is a monopoly is akin to arguing that WAMU is a monopoly because
>it's the only station that can broadcast at 88.5 MHz in the DC area.
Calling their market segment "entertainment option" is disingenuous. You
> Calling their market segment "entertainment option" is disingenuous.
> You
> might as well call its market segment "business entity." Sure we have
> plenty of those.
Calling it a "monopoly" is even more disingenuous. See your list below to
see their competition and tell me how a single satellit
>Mandated? No, no one in the guvmint told them to merge. XM and Sirius had
>to fight to get that. I suppose it would have been better that one or both
>of them went out of business instead, right?
You have blinders on. Within the very same email you confirm what I
wrote. You words are...
>Onl
> To restate your words: The government decreed that there would be an
> oligopoly with only two players. They kept other players out. They
> created an $80,000,000 barrier to entry.
No kidding. I didn't disagree with you. Maybe the FCC shouldn't be trying
to make money by shaking down media com
83 matches
Mail list logo
