To be honest, I would rather focus on
To be honest, I would rather focus on
You're assuming that current copper last mile links are at full capacity, this isn't the case. The capacity of copper lines is determined by the protocol used to regulate the link. For example, if a cable company in a neighbourhood is using an older Docsis 2.0 modem, all the company has to do is upgrade the hardware at the neighborhood nodes, upgrade the customers' modems to Docsis 3.0, and ensure enough back haul interconnection at the peering site (see #5). There is no digging at all. While copper is not as good as fiber, the progress in multiplexing and switching tech has made copper's long term value continue to far exceed its initial layout costs many times over. Until physicists say, "that's it, copper is at capacity," the idea that copper lines need to be added to existing infrastructure is wrong. Even today, there is a lot of unlit fiber in municipalities, but due to state law, cannot be deployed by munis because of "unfair competition" with private sector. Our current policies at the state and federal level do not have public purpose in mind at all, it is the golden age of monopoly interests.
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from? Why should I pay the same for my connection as the household that's running three or four simultaneous HD streams during peak hours? My 95th percentile is less than 0.5mbit/s, yet I pay the same as my neighbor who regularly runs three HD streams at the same time. Hardly seems fair, does it?
2) Related to the last point above, moving bits doesn't directly cost the ISP money but sustained higher bitrates do require a larger CapEx investment. Caps are a blunt force instrument that should be done away with in favor of demand or 95th percentile billing, IMHO.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
4) Settlement free peering (which is essentially what Netflix is demanding) has historically only been offered in instances where the traffic to be exchanged is roughly equal. If you're relying on me to deliver your traffic for you then you pay me. It has been this way since the beginning of the commercial internet. This ecosystem literally built the internet as we know it. If you want to blow it up the onus is on you to explain why your system is better.
5) Netflix has a history of trying to offload their costs onto third parties, be they ISPs, Tier 1 networks, CDNs, etc.
6) Netflix isn't exactly the white knight that everyone thinks they are. They're a for profit company; one that I stopped doing business with after they decided to double my price with little prior warning. They've cut deals that are detrimental to their customers (i.e., withholding new releases); any other company that behaved in such a fashion would be roundly hated around these parts.
1. False choice - how a delivery system was engineered is irrelevant. Today fiber technology and capacity exists and the infrastructure investments are not Capital intense.
2. False - Moore's law is the technical constraint. Political will is the social constraint.
3. False - Iptv is better at all distribution workloads for media. Networking tech easily allows for highly efficient compressed or uncompressed media delivery via multicast protocols. It is cable that is inefficient.
4. False - research has proven that assymmeteic last mile connections can never allow for equal peering. The premise that bits flowing in one direction costs more than the other direction is a calculated business decision based on the monopoly and regulatory environment. The same way that international sms messages are technically cost less, same goes for bits traveling in either direction, it's a neutral proposition.
5. The costs you are talking about are less than a few thousands of dollars per link. A drop in the bucket.
6. Drop subscribtion. There are alternative media delivery businesses consumers can choose. Consumers have no such luxury under current US isp arrangements.
Studied electrical & network engineering, public policy and econ. Counterarguments welcome
I have fios and still don't really want to keep it. I would gladly give up fios if it meant title 2 became a reality. Luckily it's not an either or proposition.
Use WAAD or Okta, or learn how to setup a proper SSO environment since both platforms you mention offer excellent SSO interop.
Data collected by this type of system would fall under state FOIA laws meaning the data would be available and consumed by the public either directly or indirectly. Additionally the largest municipalities already have open government mandates that include law enforcement reporting that must be machine readable.
Of course cops will need an override button so that it can switch off these functions when patrolling poor neighborhoods of color.
Civil servants used to have these skills in the mid 50's because we built an economic system that wasn't focused on useless financialization. Now we have a legacy 20th century infrastructure that no longer has a 20th century revenue stream. The 21st century revenue streams are so messed up and unbalanced that only Fraudsters and liars can get elected, because no sane person could promise the things most of our elected officials promise.
At the heart of all this is the lack of federal deficit spending. Hasn't been the same since Reaganomics and the economics of Friedman took over. Probably the two most economically destructive influences in modern economic history.
many municipalities have found that the companies installing these have turned down the timing between amber and red
Citation please. I am unaware of a single time where a company has changed the timing. In every instance it has been our elected officials that made the decision.
The revenue stream for the speed camera company comes from a share of the traffic citations. The legal contracts are drafted in such a way that incentivized both parties, the municipality and the firm. To deny the soft and hard influence that takes place to "tweak" revenue is just be ignorant.
Sovereign country with its own non-convertible floating exchange rate currency can never be bankrupt.
Bitcoin's value as a payment system isn't really novel. Tommorow if the governement chose to excercise it's authority, it could make bitcoin obsolete by making all currency digital and providing free transaction services via the credit/debit/postal systems. Credit cards would still exist, but debit cards would die, and the credit card industry would be collapse to a fraction of what it is today. Economy would also be better off because business would retain an extra 2-3%, which wouldn't goto Wall Street.
The post summary is forgetting the fact that most machines sold to businesses and in retail are Windows certified which has a far higher spec requirement than minimum. Additionally, low minimum specs is what you want because it forces engineers to build efficient code rather than be adhere to Gates' Law.
The coolest things have X:
Mega Man X
Wouldn't housing associations and streets be better off with something like Bloom energy fuel cells? This plus solar seem to be the way to go.
I was just about to link to Bill Black. kudos. It is laughable for any person to say laws were not broken. Such person should be labeled a psychopath.