Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Good for Amazon! (Score 1) 76

by SillyHamster (#49546749) Attached to: Amazon's Profits Are Floating On a Cloud (Computing)

It will be interesting to see at what point the government goes after them for predatory market practices if they're only sustainable because of massive revenue/profit from other divisions.

I'm not sure I'm interested in finding out how the government thinks it can fix Internet markets.

It'd be interesting, but I don't think it'd be a very fun experiment for us Internet users.

Comment: Re:Billionaire saved by taxpayer (Score 1) 118

Among all the companies in that program the default rate was very low. Solyndra was the only noteworthy default. The DOE made a solid overall profit on the program. It was indisputably a successful program.

No, it isn't "indisputably a successful program".

Every cent of money funding this loan program was taken from a US citizen who could have been using it for some superior performing personal investment.

Comment: Re:Billionaire saved by taxpayer (Score 1) 118

Any loan program will have failures. I remember during the 2012 election Rupublicans said Obama was terrible, because fed loans made under him had a 20% bankruptcy rate. But hailed Romney as a business hero even though under his leadership Bain Capital had a 50% bankruptcy rate. The numbers aren't as bad as people make out for either; that's how these things work. We can't act like the sky is falling over some failures.

Taxpayer money, collected involuntarily ... versus private capital, collected voluntarily from people who wanted to risk their money chasing profits.

Are you unable to notice a simple, fundamental difference in the source of money?

I'll also note that your metric of success for the loan program is simply wrong. It's not measured by bankruptcy rate ... but net profit. Profit means that overall, the money was productive; bankruptcy in of itself is not relevant.

And the feds don't need to make back all their money via repayment. As the other poster said, Tesla is still paying US taxes and hiring US workers. The feds get money off that too. The feds didn't need to recoup all losses simply by repayment since they gain (maybe more so) by having a successful company.

It has not been shown that federal interference produced a better outcome than if Google had simply bought Tesla out.

If you want to justify federal loans, that's what you need to prove.

Comment: Re:Billionaire saved by taxpayer (Score 0) 118

Getting taxpayers a profit proportional to the lending risk they assumed is not "fucking [Tesla] in the ass".

The loan program also lends money to epic failures like Solyndra - if they don't maximize their profits on the better investments, they won't cover the costs on the bad ones.

Federal tax money is not a personal piggy bank for your favorite CEO/corporation. "Socialized risk and privatized profit" ring a bell?

Comment: Re:Government != Internet engineers (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49512903) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Thankfully I am not in the US so it does not affect me. And I do not subscribe to netflix

Then you are advised to learn more details about a dispute before taking a stance.

Especially when the outcome does not affect you.

Netflix did pay for their bandwidth. Comcasts customers also payed. Somewhere in the middle there was an argument.

Bandwidth is a quantity. The amount of bandwidth Netflix paid for is not equal to the amount of bandwidth Comcast's customers paid for.

Comment: Re:Government != Internet engineers (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49497587) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Comcasts customers are already paying to access Netflix. They are paying netflix and paying comcast. How comcast can not cope I do not know.

Yes, Comcast's customers paid for what they deserved.

The issue is that Netflix was failing to deliver as well as it could to them; and that was rooted in Netflix not paying its share of bandwidth costs.

Contrary to what you said earlier, there was no denial of access. There was degrading quality of access rooted in Netflix's continued growth in subscribers and bandwidth usage.

I know they have a big network but how did they not give netfix a chance.

What do you mean by "give Netflix a chance"?

This is business. You get what you pay for. Netflix got the bandwidth they paid for, and then they paid more to have the bandwidth to serve their growing number of subscribers on the Comcast network.

Comment: Re:Government != Internet engineers (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49494295) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Not as much as they should but how can you deny them the access Paying for

Here's your error. Comcast subscribers are not paying for access to Netflix. They're paying for access to Comcast's network. When their download speed from Netflix dropped to a "measly" 1.5 Mbps, there has been no denial of access.

That did result in a worse user experience - and that's entirely due to Netflix's choice of ISP and network plus their continuously growing user-base. By creating an agreement with Comcast, they kept their existing ISP and bypassed the network bottlenecks, improving their users' experience and fixing the scaling of their bandwidth use.

Scaling up solutions cost money. When Netflix is using up the bandwidth with their content, it's correct for Netflix to pay.

Comment: Re:Government != Internet engineers (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49490739) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Comcast customers pay for X Mbit access to Comcast's network. They got it.

Netflix did not have the upload to Comcast's network to handle all Netflix users on said network. That lack of upload is Netflix's problem, which is why the correct solution is for Netflix to pay Comcast to remedy this.

Failing that, they could have found a different ISP that had a better peering agreement with Comcast.

Comment: Re:Government != Internet engineers (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49480127) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Netflix do not peer with comcast. Netflix demonstrably has enough bandwidth available to get the data out there (onto the pipes so to speak). Comcast refused to provide the bandwidth from the transit providers to their own network. You know the one that their customers pay for.

Netflix chose an ISP that did not have enough bandwidth to Comcast. Getting bandwidth "out there" is only half the problem.

Comcast's customers paid for X Mbits access from Comcast's network. It doesn't guarantee they get X Mbits access from some dinky server on the Internet that has 128 Kbps upload. Neither does it guarantee that all Y Netflix users on Comcast's network get Y*X Mbps access to Netflix content, when Netflix's network's connection to Comcast does not have that much bandwidth.

If Netflix was a customer of Comcast's network, that'd be one thing... but they weren't, at least until they created their agreement.

Netflix streaming is at times 30% of the Internet's total traffic. If they don't pay those bandwidth costs, then it's going to be paid by the people who aren't Netflix users ... how is that a better solution?

Pay for what you use - meaning Netflix should pay.

Comment: Re:"to review new federal regulations" (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49474671) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

"I view being beholden to the laws to be very different than being beholden to the people making the laws."

If you're going to include the courts as law interpreters, you have to include the lawmakers, who write the laws with an eye on how it will be interpreted, or modify laws in reaction to judge rulings.

we disagree on whether that fact is sufficient to make Congress the "boss" of the FCC, which is a matter of subjective opinion, since it comes down to our interpretation of what constitutes a boss and whether or not Congress is filling that role.

The debate is on whether the FCC answers to Congress. If you agree that the FCC can be dissolved at will by Congress - there is no question that the FCC does indeed answer to Congress. If Congress has an opinion on how the FCC conducts its activities, the FCC shuts up and listens.

I'm not all that concerned whether or not you have to use the word "boss" to describe that relationship, but your resistance to the word is an odd prejudice. The relationship does not have any of the complexities you're trying to read into it.

Comment: Re:"to review new federal regulations" (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49473753) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

I disagree with your assertion that Congress is "continuing to delegate that authority". They delegated it. Past tense. It's gone. Unless they take it back, it remains gone. There is no continual reliance on Congress to continue delegating their authority. As such, I stand by my statement that there is no reliance on Congress at all. If Congress disappeared tomorrow, the FCC could continue its operation, which wouldn't be possible if there was a reliance on Congress.

You would have a point if and only if Congress was unable to take back that delegated authority.

If Congress made a territory into its own independent sovereign nation, that would be something along the lines of what you're talking about.

But that is not how the FCC is operating. The FCC operates within the United States of America according to US law, at the continued pleasure of Congress.

Revoke those laws, and the FCC has no authority to tell any US citizen or organization to do anything.

You know how the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? It defines Congress, and the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. It does not define the FCC. The FCC exists because Congress created it, and it operates independently only because Congress allows it. If Congress doesn't like the job the FCC is doing, the FCC will comply or be dissolved.

If Congress disappears ... so does the authority of the FCC.

After all, the same is true for everyone in the country, yet we wouldn't consider Congress to be our boss, even though we'd agree that the laws have authority over us.

Do you not know American History? That's because we're Congress's boss.

When we vote someone into office, the results of the vote are not a polite suggestion. The institution has been corrupted over time, but this is basic civics.

In terms of who I would say that the FCC is answerable to, I'd suggest it's to the laws establishing its mandate, the laws expanding its powers, and the courts who interpret those laws.

You left out an important and extremely relevant entity in that list - the group of people who write and repeal the laws establishing mandates and powers. Some might call those "lawmakers". In the US, that body is called "Congress".

I dunno...does that explain my stance a bit better? Again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You can be wrong if you want, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion.

Either the FCC answers to Congress, or it does not. The truth of the matter is obvious - what happens if the FCC tells Congress to take a hike because "hissy fit"?

Comment: Re:"to review new federal regulations" (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49472923) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Is it a contradiction that your parents aren't your bosses, despite establishing you and granting you life?

Inapplicable analogy. Parents aren't allowed to kill their children, because we actually do not consider parents the granter of life. (Can they restore the life of the children they kill? No.)

Likewise, just because Congress can dissolve the FCC, it doesn't make it the FCC's boss.

Nonsense. That is a boss, by definition.

The FCC is self-funded through regulatory fees, has been granted authority to act independently, and does not rely on Congressional support for any aspect of its continued operation.

False. It relies on Congress continuing to delegate that authority. The FCC's ability to collect fees is due to Congress continuously authorizing it to do so.

If and when Congress doesn't like how the FCC is using its delegated authority, it can take it back - even for no reason at all - and the FCC has no authority to override Congress's decisions.

The FCC exists because Congress passed a law. It will cease to exist if Congress repeals that law. The FCC exists at the whim of Congress.

Comment: Re:Libertarianism, the new face of the GOP? (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49472799) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

Thank you for the response. That's the type of example I was looking for.

However a quick skim through the history brings up this: "In 1852 the Supreme Court declared the Bain telegraph an infringement on Morseâ(TM)s patent"

So there was vibrant competition in the 1850s ... until the government stepped in with patent enforcement. (Patents are a government granted monopoly)

"Western Union faced three threats during this period: increased government regulation, new entrants into the field of telegraphy, and new competition from the telephone. The last two were the most important to the companyâ(TM)s future profitability"

So even as a monopoly - they were facing competition from other firms, and from new technology.

"The period from 1866 through the turn of the century was the apex of Western Unionâ(TM)s power. Yearly messages sent over its lines increased from 5.8 million in 1867 to 63.2 million in 1900. Over the same period, transmission rates fell from an average of $1.09 to 30 cents per message"

Due to the monopoly ... users enjoyed lower and lower prices. (also, higher quality due to unified wire network)

Just what does government protect us from here? Why is it important is it to regulate "natural monopolies" when they bring lower prices and higher quality product, and dissolve when obsoleted?

Comment: Re:Libertarianism, the new face of the GOP? (Score 1) 441

by SillyHamster (#49472615) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

natural monopolies exist whether government interferes or not. that what makes them "natural".

That's what people like to say, but observation of the history of monopolies demonstrate that no such "natural" monopolies have ever existed. That's why you were asked to provide an example.

There are situations where one company gets a large amount of marketshare - but never one where only a single company is capable of surviving, or where it successfully kills all competitors ... unless the government steps in.

You'll note that power, water ,electrical, gas, all involve municipal monopolies. If your concept of natural monopoly is true, you should be able to provide a history where the monopoly existed before the government granted it.

e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer