Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:They already made money (Score 1) 136

If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN

Like they did in Chattanooga, TN, Longmont, CO, and tens of other cities across the US? Oh wait, you said ISDN, not Gigabit fibre.

I'm not a big government fan, but when it comes to services that have reached utility level (aka everyone needs them to function in society, like water, electricity, and now internet access) the profit driven "free market" approach only seems to create monopolies that drive up prices and lower the quality of service.

Sigh. Again, this isn't a free market. Remember "billions in subsidies"?

The other issue is that this isn't like water and electricity. The same standards of delivery for those services was the same 100 years ago. Broadband has changed dramatically in the last 5 years. There is simply no comparison.

I have no problem at all with municipal broadband competing in a market on a level playing field (meaning they also have to provide service to places that might not be lucrative), which is mostly what you see in Chattanooga. But it can't be an either/or.

Comment Re:They already made money (Score 2) 136

they got billions (with a 'b') in subsidies while _also_ being allowed to charge extra fees to bring fiber to those poor neighborhoods. ... Why the hell Americans are so obsessed with the "free" market...

And, yet again, we have cronyism being confused with a free market.

Hint: If they got billions in subsidies, it's not a free market.

Hint 2: If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN out to those neighborhoods over the next 5 years.

It's difficult to find the winning path.

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 65

Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.

And that network is not behind my connection to my ISP? Since otherwise it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever not to count it toward my data cap.

They pay less to carry that traffic because they don't have to bring it in through a peer.

Comment Re:No. (Score 3, Insightful) 65

Please, please tell me why Google Play Music should be free while Bob's Music Shop down the street would cost to stream the exact same songs?

Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.

This is why it probably makes sense to split such companies up into physical connection companies and content providers, since the physical connection companies have a built-in advantage for providing content.

Comment Re:Right Sure... (Score 4, Insightful) 619

Apparently you don't know what the fuck you're talking about since that's not remotely close to being true.

Please educate yourself. You're embarrassing all the other asshats on Slashdot.


Uh, yeah. You're the embarrassment who needs to educate yourself. The executive order is based on a law passed in 2015 and signed by Obama - and the seven countries are listed there. Even the loons at Politifact know this:


Comment Re:Biased article.. (Score 1) 619

I can tell the article and website are biased by the first phrase.
"In a bid to court working class voters..."
No, it's not a bid for voters. It's fulfilling a campaign promise.

Right, which is supposed to be a good thing. And to further the point, Trump won because of working class voters. it's the coastal elites and their stooge (Hillary) who would have expanded the H-1B program to bring in more tech workers at lower wages.

Comment Re:Make America Great (Score 4, Insightful) 619

What exactly has he done wrong so far?

The better question is what he's done right. So far he has signed an unconstitutional executive order,

If it's unconstitutional then so was Obama's, yet nobody seemed to get their panties in a wad when he stopped Iraqis from coming into the country for a period of time based on a law passed by Congress. The judge used Trump's campaign language as a basis for deciding that now the order is illegal - I'm frankly more concerned about the judge.

inflamed tensions with Russia

Wait, I thought he was a Russian stooge. So difficult to keep up with this stuff.

and North Korea,

Oh, bull fucking shit. Kim Jong Un is pissing off the world, including China. His biggest export is coal and China just cut him off to buy from America. Are they also "inflaming tensions", or is the asshole Kim doing it himself? We both know the answer. It's good to have a US President that is willing to stand up to Kim. The guy is soon going to be able to put nukes on missiles - it's time to take him seriously.

sent his press secretary out to blatantly and obviously lie to the press

It took this long to get to something substantive.

vacillated on his positions regarding Syria, China, and NATO, accused the previous administration of criminality with no proof or evidence, and acted surprised that things like health care legislation and international relations are complicated. He tweets at 3 AM about Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance at his old job, like some teenage girl jealous that Brian likes Becky now.

The man is a boor and a buffoon, and an embarrassment to our country. I'm still slightly astounded that about 27% of the population doesn't recognize that.

He has a 50% approval rating. Sorry to let you know that.

And, frankly, he's no more of an embarrassment than Obama was. As a lefty, you probably didn't see that. Let me give you a clue - it got so bad that the President of the Philippines - long considered a vassal state to the US - openly mocked Obama last year. He was seen as a weak fool in Asia, which is why China wouldn't even give him the red carpet (don't bother with some stupid shit from media matters explaining that they actually did).

I'm not a Trump fan but I recognize why he won (clue: Hillary) and I have no delusions that we would have been better off in *any* way with Hillary in the White House.

Comment Re:How to make your Rights illegal. (Score 1) 249

Not to mention how clueless it is to put "education" spending under "secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity [sic]". It's silly enough to use the preamble for something like this (should use Article I, Section 8) but worse yet that so much of federal spending - such as education - isn't Constitutional.

For those who missed civics class or didn't have it - education is one of those things the states are supposed to handle, not the federal government. That's why there are no federal universities like the various state universities.

Comment Re:So? (Score 2) 122

I've been staying at places through VRBO for nearly 20 years, I doubt that anyone knew I was a temporary renter unless they're really familiar with their neighbors or were directly involved in the rental activity (I've been told to "see Clara next door for the keys" type of things multiple times). Just because there are assholes out there doesn't mean we should try to shut down an entire industry.

Comment Re:Who cares (Score 4, Insightful) 296

So when they put out all the paranoid rhetoric that the US is only out to invade and bomb them, are they really being paranoid?

My drill instructor gave me some useful advice about thirty years ago: if someone says they want to kill you, you should take them seriously. Let's keep in mind that since the late 1950's North Korea has been militant, aggressive, threatening, and destabilizing no matter who was in the White House. Various administrations have tried various sticks and various carrots to get them to change all to no avail. If the Norks are afraid of external animosity they only have themselves to blame.

Comment Re:People are more worried about jobs (Score 1) 423

And why is such a monopoly present? Two main reasons:

1. It is economically unfeasible for anyone to bring you service other than the existing provider who is piggybacking on prior infrastructure. In this case, you chose a poor place to live. It's not the fault of the company or the taxpayer that it would cost $10 million in fiber to service 100 rural customers and they won't do it because there's no reasonable return on investment. If you don't like it, nobody is putting a gun to your head saying you have to stay there. Some people move because they want more land, or less traffic, or better climate. Internet service is no different.

2. Local politicians protect the monopoly in return for campaign contributions. Vote the fuckers out, problem solves itself.

Comment Re:The game is too one-sided (Score 1) 423

And nothing of value would be lost.

According to you and your set of values. It's rather arrogant of you to foist those on others.

Yes, plenty of "free" works can and do exist. None exist in any form at a scale equivalent to larger projects with correspondingly larger value (value also being subjective but I'm speaking in generic terms). Suffice to say, there are amazing creative works that contribute to society in ways that could not be practically accomplished in a "free" manner.

If "free" were the rule instead of the exception there would be no market for paid content in a capitalist open-market society. That there is demonstrates your conclusion is not correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember: use logout to logout.