I could have fiber to my door that runs to one of, say 5 network access points in my town. In the NAP, there are racks with switches and routers for dozens of ISPs. I pick one. They drive out and jack me in.
The last mile run of wire to your door is the most expensive to do and maintain.
The biggest argument against Title II is that is raises the barrier to entry, thereby killing off competition. Competition has been shown to help keep prices down over and over again.
Any time you layer more regulation on something, the cost of business goes up. Just the nature of regulation. In this particular landscape we have Google coming along and trying to offer Internet. But they're big enough to absorb the costs of regulation. Under Title II, I don't know if a small startup could arise to shake up the market.
Though I fully understand what they were trying to do with Title II, I think there was a better way to go. I think that the actual cable to your house should be part of infrastructure, much like public roads. And you get to pick who drives on that road to give you service. I think that would have opened up the door to competition and lowered prices.
Look at the 90s and how many dial-up ISPs we had. They all rode on the phone lines of the Telcos, which were pretty damn close to open.
I want the fiber to my door to be owned by someone other than my ISP.
The we deserve to be wiped off the planet. Something else will evolve to take our place.
To be honest, that's the way it should work. When any species overruns an area and decimates it, it usually goes extinct and then the ecosystem goes back into balance over time through selective pressure causing new species to evolve. We're just trying to delay the inevitable.
That is great point. We're all worried about global warming and no one gives a shit that your Xbox and iPhone are made in a Chinese factory by workers pulling 12 hour shift in conditions you would fine deplorable.
And something I always tell the greehouse gas nuts. You know what produces ZERO greenhouse gases? Nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is completely carbon neutral.
I don't need to examine anytihng.
The theory, as put forth, does a relatively good job of explaining MOST of the things we are seeing at present. The model has some issues with the Mideval mini ice-age and the peroid of significantly reduced polar ice that happened after that. It did a horrible job of predicitng the polar ice refreezing that happened 2 or 3 years ago.
And right now, the theory is being used as an excuse for everything. We had a record hurrincane year 2 years ago. We actually went through the whole alphabet and then some. Scinetists were all over the news telling us this is a result of global warming, since the oceans are now warmer. They said it fit the model to a tee, and that it's just going to get worse from year out. Last year was the mildest hurricane season they had seen in a long time. Global Warming was being used by meteorologists as the cause for the polar vortexes that dropped temperatures down into the single and negative digits.
So, yeah, global warming has been well studied, but it's not the damn be-all, end-all for how this planet does shit. Everythig bad that happens on the planet is not the result of the CO2 levels in the air. And all the work you do to try and save our asses from rising temparatures will be meaningless when the Yellowstone Supervolcanoe erupts and takes out half the country, which "well established science" said should have erupted close to 20 years ago.
I was a research biologist for a number of years, and it sickens me how many people these days make the data fit the theory, rather than making the theory fit the data
Like I said in a previous post, infra-red imaging of the inner planets in our solar system shows them heating up at a rate similar to Earth. But, say that out loud and people like you friggin flip out.
I read the study on the Martian polar ice caps. I also read that all the planets in the inner solar system are heating up at the same rate. When you mention stuff like this, the Global Warming guys flip and jump down your throat that you can't use data from other planets to predict what's happening on Earth.
There was also a great article on how the polar ice caps are refreezing at the fastest rate ever.
The problem here is that the people on the side of man-made global warming think every mention of the fact that this may be a natural phenomenon or just temporary automatically makes you some kind of industry shill. That is far from the case. I think it's the job of every scientist to continuously question and test. No one should assume man-made global warming is 100% truth at this point.
And I do agree that is distracting poeple from many other problems. I hear combating global warming all the time, but no one EVER talks about cleaning up the Great Pacific Garage Patch. The average Global Warming advocate that would call you an industry shill, doesn't even know what the Garbage Patch is. Or they don't know that Wind Turbines for electricity production kill bats by the thousands. Or that the Toyota Prius battery factory in Canada is slowly destroying the environment around it.
When I mention any of this stuff, they get outraged, and continue to call me an industry shill. Which I am not. I'm trying to show them that Global Warming is NOT the greatest crisis to face mankind. Cause before that the greatest crisis was power lines causing cancer. And before that, it was acid rain. And before that was the Ozone Layer. Before that, a new ice age was coming. There's always some crisis out there that the media brings to the forefront. Global Warming is just the latest attempt to sensationalize headlines, use "carbon neutral" as a marketing term to sell products and keep you scared that this crisis is far worse than the last one that was supposed to wipe us out and didn't.