Yup - there are some criteria that we've explicitly decided NOT to let people use (i.e. even if you could show that race and auto insurance costs were correlated, and that the relationship was statistically significant, you still couldn't charge people more for being black/white/Asian/whatever), but credit score isn't one of those.

Except that credit score is actually quite a good predictor of car insurance risk. Not saying that it's causal, but, overall, people who pay their bills on time also tend to drive more cautiously and get into fewer accidents.

I've got to think he was arrested/detained/etc in the Maldives. I can't imagine that he'd be stupid enough to visit Guam with a US indictment hanging over him.

Not unless the country in question authorizes it. If the Maldives didn't, then it's kidnapping. If they did, then it's deportation, and entirely kosher.

1. The US and Russia don't have an extradition treaty. Russia, in fact, doesn't extradite their citizens, period. So, that option is moot.
2. If the Maldives decided to hand him over to the US, that's the Maldives' call. They can deport people to wherever they please. Again, no violation of treaty, since the Maldives and Russia (and the Maldives and the US) don't have an extradition treaty.
3. If he was grabbed without the consent of the Maldivian (?) government, then that would constitute kidnapping there (presumably, I'm not an expert on the law of the Maldives).

1. This falls clearly under #1, investigation of financial crimes.
2. He was indicted in 2011. If he were, say, a UK citizen (for example), the US would have put in an extradition request, and the UK would have (following a hearing, assuming there was credible evidence) extradited him. Same if the alleged crime had taken place in the UK, and he were a US citizen in the US.
3. Russia doesn't extradite their citizens, period, and, even if they did, there's no extradition treaty between the US and Russia. Therefore, no, there aren't any "normal cooperative channels" involved.
4. If the Maldives government (and I have to assume he was arrested there, otherwise he'd be a complete idiot, knowing that he had been indicted in the US, to visit Guam) consented to his arrest and transfer to the US, that's entirely kosher. The Maldives doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US (they don't have one with anyone, as far as I know, which might have been a reason that Mr. Seleznev decided to vacation there), but that doesn't mean that they're not allowed to extradite people, just that they're not obliged to.

Again, in NYC (not everywhere, NYC is the exception), Uber drivers, including UberX, have to have commercial licenses, and their cars have commercial plates. They also have commercial insurance.

Again, Uber in NYC is different. All their drivers (including UberX drivers) have commercial licenses, and are driving Taxi & Limo Commission certified cars, with commercial plates.

Again, in NYC, Uber drivers carry the same insurance that taxis or any other livery car driver carriers. It's commercial vehicle insurance.

Not in NYC. Same insurance requirements, since they're all regulated livery car drivers.

NYC Taxis have to carry $100k (per person) / $300k (per incident) liability insurance. That's the same for Uber drivers.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/do...

UberX in NYC is somewhat different from UberX in most markets. In NYC, UberX uses licensed livery cars and drivers (who have livery licenses, commercial insurance, etc), the same as Uber Black, etc., and the standard car service companies. The only difference between UberX and Uber Black in NYC is that UberX will have less nice cars (typically Camrys vs. Town Cars).

This is very different from UberX in SF, LA, etc., where it's pretty much "got a car? got a license? congrats, you're an UberX driver!"

Wow, I wish I had mod points to give you.

1. They are spending billions on new infrastructure. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable spent about $51 billion last year in capex.
2. They aren't focused on lowering consumer costs, but the improved service is definitely there (albeit clearly uneven, depending on location). As an example, Comcast's base broadband service was 10Mbps two years ago. By the end of this year, it will be 50Mbps. Prices have risen about 5-10% over that time, so you're looking at a 75%+ decline in $/Mbps.

If you think that the $ AT&T is getting from USF is at all meaningful to them, or comes even close to the benefit they'd get from being able to raise their other rates to capture the 15%+ USF tax (i.e. instead of consumer paying $100, USF getting 15, and AT&T getting 85, AT&T could get 95, and consumer's bill would drop), you really haven't thought much about this.

As for your complaint that USF subsidizes the wrong things, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the program is designed to ensure that every household in the US, even if poor, rural, or both, has phone service.