That is the wrong answer entirely. You should try to dictate prices to ISPs. The better approach is to work to increase competition. That will drive down prices and increase speeds.
Its worked in my city as prices for fiber are cheap and there is like 6-7 companies who will do it.
Telecom is a natural monopoly: even if you’ve got 6-7 companies marketing to the public, chances are only one of them is actually running the lines (maybe two, if we’re talking about both fiber and coaxial) and the others are just resellers. In other words, the competition is kinda artificial since the one with the infrastructure should (in theory – barring regulations disallowing it) always be able to undercut the others, who are just middlemen taking out an extra chunk of profit.
Although I guess you could argue that deregulation is better than the regulatory-captured status quo, fully regulating the telecom provider as the monopoly it is (if not nationalizing it entirely) would be inherently more efficient.
This is why I think that the lines should be owned by the municipalities (or a multi-community partnership) and access to them resold. Not even just for fiber, do all of them. The town already handles the water and the sewer, why can’t they lay the pipe for the gas?
They don’t need to be the ISP, or the cable company, or electric company, or whatever (though they can be). Just own and maintain the infra. Obtain right of way. Lease access.
Safety on the road has been improved so far by having public orgs and governments pressuring companies with regulations. Without them there would be no seatbelts and dashboards might still be dotted with stylish pointy metal spikes.
Unfortunately safety regulations have solely focused on the occupants of the concerned vehicle. It follows that any feature that protects the occupant at the expense of everyone else is still measured as a net positive. Ultimately this is leading to an arms race.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
I would take it further and day that regulations should prioritize the safety of the people outside the vehicle over the people inside, for the simple reason that the people buying the vehicle already have a strong incentive to maximize their own safety, while they currently have zero concerns about the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, don’t have the freedom to choose which vehicle runs them over, so it is up to regulations to advocate for them because nobody else will.
I’ve legit heard people say things along the lines of “The largest SUV or trucks are safer for Americans because it can hold up better in a collision with deer which we have a lot of.” (Because apparently large wildlife aren’t common anywhere at all in the rest of the world.)
They have a point though, and they’ll hold up especially well against a specific, extremely common subspecies of deer called “humans.”
Punish them for their complete inability to block spam calls. Million bucks per successfully connected call would fix it overnight and then our phone would be worthwhile as phones once again.
You realize the telcos themselves know exactly where the spam calls are coming from, right? You can be damn sure that functionality was a top priority from day 1 because (just like for all subscribers) they need to know the spammers’ usage in order to bill them for it.
They just don’t bother passing that information along to end users or law enforcement because nobody’s forcing them to.
They dont actually thanks to VoIP and other countries telcos being shit and pushing through whatever is sent with the call, which is exactly where that disconnect happens. Ive been in Telecom a long time, and the push to fix that problem was very real long before Indian scammers were spoofing calls for IT scams. Once you go to IP, the “real” link isnt there, and CID becomes no more than a data string which is no longer tied to anything physical as far as telecom infrastructure, which they have to accept in the current set up, which is why said the whole thing has to start from scratch.
The other issue is the way non ILECs send the CID is exactly how the scammers spoof, to cut that off, all CLECs would loose the ability to send CID data, businesses wouldn’t be able to send a main phone from their 3000+ extensions etc. Its far from a simple soulution which is why its still an issue.
You can be damn sure that functionality was a top priority from day 1 because (just like for all subscribers) they need to know the spammers’ usage in order to bill them for it.
CID data being injected has absolutely nothing to do with a line being used regardless of what the outbound DID actually is.
frequency of 'spam' calls should have significant gone down with the implementation of cid verification (stir/shaken). it has on all our lines; home and office--cellular and pots.
FCC recently begged congress to let them punish spam calls. It turns out that they currently have to research then forward to the justice department for it to do its own research then file an order against a specific name, then the company changes its name and throws the fine in the trash can, and the cycle repeats
For the last decade I’ve paid for high speed fiber cable from Comcast, and that monthly 1tb limit was a killer with a family. So I paid the extra $50 (for a few years, then $30 these last 2) for unlimited. All for a total low package price of $250. My buddy in a nearby town with better speeds and multiple options has never paid for this add on, because he has competition in the area. I had zero choice, there were zero network improvements in my area until this year when a new local fiber company started burying fiber in my area. Today I pay $100 for 2gb symmetrical unlimited internet, way cheaper than the $250 I’ve paid for years for a forced tv/phone/internet package.
I hope there’s a class action for this. Fuck Comcast.
there's enough ways around charges of 'discriminating' based on the disallowed criteria of household income or race, that it will still be 'business as usual' for providers. they'll use other excuses, such as differences in local market (competition) and population/customer density, or the 'extreme' costs of upgrading aging infrastructure in previously-"avoided" areas, which would be 'allowed'.
Geez really? I had no idea that pedestrians were so careless, what is it about larger trucks that makes people jump out in front of them.
I like to see things as an opportunity, and I think we can use this as a lesson to do things differently. Like, let’s make trucks louder so you hear them before you see them. More Turbo, and how about vertical tail pipe stack. Next we can increase the number of lights, and make them brighter so that everyone can see. Let’s add more cameras and computers so the driver can see their blind spots simply by looking at the command console screen. We can even make these features available for free for a small amount of non invasive advertising.
Do you remember how trains solved the problems of cows derailing trains. They put a guard on the front. So let’s make an even bigger steel bumper.
Nah, because that would involve the slightest reduction in personal freedom which as we all know is a fate not only worse than death, but worse than hellfire itself.
What? Are you suggesting I drive a smaller truck just to help other people? Are you saying I crash into people? I need that giant truck! Do you know how much I haul and tow every day?! I mean, I don’t, I commute back and forth to work every day in it, but I need to do that. My coworkers see that truck next to their cars and think “Damn, that guy drives a Truck”. Maybe if they see how big of a truck I drive it’ll make up for the crippling social anxiety I have that I just keep pushing further and further down, maybe it’ll make up for not getting that promotion I worked for. Now they’ll have to notice me. So no, you aren’t taking away my F350 Mega Macho Man-Manliness Super Truck. How else will people know I’m a man?
Which is why we call them ESTs. Emotional Support Trucks.
Yeah, it sounds like a problem with a contributor to Shutterstock not following the terms of use. The person who put together the marketing materials for Loki was just using stock images. I don’t think it should be on them to enforce shutterstock’s TOU.
I don't get why this would be a problem. It's just a poster image.
Hell, even if they used AI for the in-show VFX, I still don't see why it would be an issue. Almost all VFX for the last several years have been using some level of AI tools.
You are forgetting a cardinal rule: When something is likely to affect the press, the press affords it more attention.
So the writers, editors, graphic designers etc of the press are likely to be very affected by generative AI. So they worry about it. So they write about it.
I’m also in a line of work that will see substantial changes … so I understand their plight. But I think a large part of the reason the press write about the use of genAI to make “art output” is that they worry about genAI will make their “art output” soon.
“So they write about it” with AI assistance. It can easily be argued that modern word processor software has some level of AI in it.
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Same story, it’s just a question to what extent the software moves from being an unacceptable amount of assistance as a tool. Sports equipment follows the same story, at some point it’s regarded as cheating, we just haven’t established what that line is. Clearly there are people who don’t care what that line is and so long as it represents a competitive advantage to ignore that line then people will freely cross it.
theverge.com
Newest