A new ‘study’ claims that the communciations companies in the US will lose 340,000 jobs in the next decade if the federal Communications Commission (FCC) carries on with its current policy of net neutrality.
And, the study reckons, that could rise to 1.5 million by 2020, the point at which US consumers are supposed to have universal access to fast broadband.
I have not read the whole paper, but this assertion is at worst unsubstantiated propaganda.
Good analysis of the position the telecoms companies are taking, basically attempting to use throttling and 'priority' access to bandwidth to compete with content providers, who could now be partly considered their competitors.
Should be read alongside Net neutrality: Do the numbers add up? for a look at the problems with the original study.
Network neutrality rules adopted by the US Federal Communications Commission could lead to the loss of more than 340,000 jobs in the broadband industry over the next 10 years, with few offsetting web content jobs, according to a new study funded by a group opposed to the proposed rules.
The main point seems to be the flawed assumption that given net neutrality rules, the big cable companies will be losing profits, therefore contracting investment and losing jobs. However, as these profits exist only in potentia, how does this hold true?
Also, the last quoted person seems to make a good point. If the networks are charging for better speeds for certain services, it is in their interests to make the service as congested as possible for non-payers. Therefore to maximise profits (as they are legally obliged to do as public companies), they would be bound to degrade their investment in overall capacity and bandwidth.
Decimate us, huh? Thank goodness! You see, Decimate literally means "to reduce by ten percent", or "to kill one of every ten". If an alien asteroid attack on Earth is only going to kill one in ten, I'll take my chances. Had you said we'd be annihilated, which means "to destroy completely", then I'd be scared.
Dictionary Definition Main Entry: decimate Pronunciation: \de-s-mt\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): decimated; decimating Etymology: Latin decimatus, past participle of decimare, from decimus tenth, from decem ten Date: 1660 1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of 2 : to exact a tax of 10 percent from 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number b : to cause great destruction or harm to You are correct and pedantic. The use of decimate that he chose was correct.
We're working on a policy and procedure change to fix a customer experience problem caused by multiple copies of public domain titles being uploaded by a multitude of publishers. For an example of this problem, do a search on "Pride and Prejudice" in the Kindle Store. The current situation is very confusing for customers as it makes it difficult to decide which 'Pride and Prejudice' to choose. As a result, at this time we are not accepting additional public domain titles through DTP, including the following: The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
Traces of a Hidden Tradition in Masonry and Medieval Mysticism
The History of the Knights Templar by Nicolas Notovitch...
If you believe that we have wrongly identified this title as a public domain title, and you are the copyright holder or are authorized to sell it by the copyright holder, then please reply to email@example.com with appropriate documentation of your e-book rights.
Thank you, Amazon.com
As can be seen, this brings an entirely new issue into play: apparently, if I owned the rights to a public domain book and can prove it, they will reconsider. However, nobody can own a public domain book. Amazon is telling us that in order to post our books we need to prove a contradiction!
One key point is that Amazon has applied this ban completely non-selectively. Established publishers such as myself and others who have never had any quality control issues whatsoever, and give good value for the price, have all been tarred with the broad brush of 'Public Domain Publisher--do not post'.
By banning new public domain books from the Kindle, they are making an implicit decision as to which books people should read. You can argue that 'you can get these texts anywhere' but by excluding high quality Kindle books of them from the nascent Kindle marketplace, Amazon is implicitly trying to decide what is a valid part of our culture and what isn't. This trend does not bode well for the future of ebooks.
Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!