Comment Re:Why should people change their energy use... (Score 1) 272
So you'd prefer the opposite order? Wars first, offshore oil exploration later?
So you'd prefer the opposite order? Wars first, offshore oil exploration later?
What's the alternative? Do you think you can convince everyone that deprivation is better than plenty? Do you think the government will suddenly start adopting sound economic policies rather than economic policies to satisfy greed and envy and entitlement and grievance and short-term political goals? What would cause that to happen? And if it happened, what would cause it to continue?
Why should billions of people drastically cut their living standards to help a few thousand in the Maldives? Why should poor people agree to pay a lot more for energy to help rich FL coastal dwellers?
Do people on the coast matter more than everyone else?
Verizon can afford more lawmakers than you.
That's not an answer though. It's a description of the problem.
The reality is: they don't seem to care. If you want them to care, shouldn't you try to understand why they don't?
The reason Verizon can stay in business despite having "very limited interest in what their customers want" is because of municipal and state granted monopolies...
I know. So a different answer might be to break up the monopolies and tell local governments that they can't make long term monopoly deals any more.
Why is "government friends with guns" an acceptable argument for them getting their way, but not an acceptable argument against it?
It's not good in either case. We should head in the other direction.
Verizon can afford more government friends than you can. Do you honestly foresee a time when they won't? If not, maybe you shouldn't want things to be decided based on who has more government friends?
Perhaps a rule where cable or satellite TV providers are prohibited from operating centralized peering points. If Verizon had to buy their bandwidth from upstream providers, they wouldn't be able to choke L3. And L3 would have to bid against Verizon's upstream providers to get Netflix's business.
Essentially, less economic centralization in the network infrastructure would provide for more opportunities for competitive bidding all along the chain. Everyone would end up with more customer-focused incentives.
This is a different answer. Thanks.
Customers.
They seem to have very limited interest in what their customers want for Netflix streaming quality. What is their incentive to care?
Those laws are the answers.
I covered that with "the government should threaten Verizon and force them to operate the network contrary to Verizon's best interests".
"I want it and my government friends have guns..." Is this the best we can do?
Why should Verizon do the upgrade? Why would they want to? To make Level 3 happy? To make Netflix happy? What is their incentive?
The only answers I've seen for this on Slashdot are:
- the government should threaten Verizon and force them to operate the network contrary to Verizon's best interests,
- the government should seize Verizon's network
- no answer, just crying about how you're entitled to better Netflix video quality
Got anything better?
Not everything. Here's the list so far.
No one is seriously saying there will be a lot less land. Not any time in the next 1000 years. And you can build a lot of seawalls and other countermeasures in 1000 years.
Why should an ordinary person worry about a rich San Francisco building owner?
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
