Advertisement

Obama destroys net neutrality

Started by December 21, 2010 11:05 AM
24 comments, last by Koobazaur 14 years, 2 months ago
Quote:
Original post by Antheus
Quote:
Original post by Khaiy
But it's not the main one, and I don't see any reason to expect that it will completely, or even substantially, displace what is far and away the most widespread and robust method of access.


Look who called:


I give it 5 years in West and 10 in Korea. Everyone else is already on mobile only.

Land lines will still be available for corporate plans. Like it was 15 years ago.


I believe it would also be much cheaper to build expansive wireless networks as opposed to having to run broadband cables to everyone's home. Too bad we're all getting brain cancer. [grin]
Quote:
Original post by tstrimp
I believe it would also be much cheaper to build expansive wireless networks as opposed to having to run broadband cables to everyone's home. Too bad we're all getting brain cancer. [grin]


Cost is relative.

There is definitely less material and construction, but at the same time landlines generate more employment and likely generate more wealth across wider range of population, especially among local workforce. (which adds taxes, generates employment, improves status, increases desirability of real estate, ....).

With mobile networks the effort is much more centralized with little outside impact.

Possible exception are big cities where laying cables is difficult, but wifi is not a clear winner there either due to obstruction which requires much higher coverage - for which a quality service will require land lines.


Costs are really tricky. Especially when it comes to infrastructure projects the numbers shuffled around are typically just the immediate costs.

Consider road construction. Is it worth saving 10% of the price for 2 year delay in construction (perhaps to pay less for land)? How much wealth do users of this road generate if they save 10 minutes each time (over two years)?

Most of construction is classified as sunk cost anyway and for most part it's not really the biggest part. Communication infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, but far from all of it is actual on-site construction.

Ironically, this is a very good case against privatization of such investment. Governments and subsidies can do wonders for this type of projects, which is why the further east one goes in Europe the better the internet, despite GDP being exact opposite. It's simply cheaper to build stuff like this in one big swoop using a big budget, since over long run it is competitive to price sensitive investment.

A historical perspective also confirms this. During last depression, infrastructure provided a huge boost toward recovery. And most of it remains in use today. Now would actually be a great time for subsidized large scale construction of cable/fiber networks.
Advertisement
Quote:
Original post by tstrimp
I believe it would also be much cheaper to build expansive wireless networks as opposed to having to run broadband cables to everyone's home. Too bad we're all getting brain cancer. [grin]


It's only a matter of time until humans evolve RF receivers in their brains so they can access wireless networks automatically. Likely the only reason it hasn't happened yet is people keep changing the frequencies and protocols. :(
Quote:
Original post by Nypyren
Quote:
Original post by tstrimp
I believe it would also be much cheaper to build expansive wireless networks as opposed to having to run broadband cables to everyone's home. Too bad we're all getting brain cancer. [grin]


It's only a matter of time until humans evolve RF receivers in their brains so they can access wireless networks automatically. Likely the only reason it hasn't happened yet is people keep changing the frequencies and protocols. :(


or because all the people born with them die of brain cancer or have severe autism and can't tell us about it.
Quote:
Original post by EricRRichards
Cool, maybe people will get off their crackberries once in a while...


Especially while driving!
Quote:
Original post by way2lazy2care
Quote:
Original post by Nypyren
Quote:
Original post by tstrimp
I believe it would also be much cheaper to build expansive wireless networks as opposed to having to run broadband cables to everyone's home. Too bad we're all getting brain cancer. [grin]


It's only a matter of time until humans evolve RF receivers in their brains so they can access wireless networks automatically. Likely the only reason it hasn't happened yet is people keep changing the frequencies and protocols. :(


or because all the people born with them die of brain cancer or have severe autism and can't tell us about it.


Your autistic nephew isn't sitting there staring at a wall; he's reading 4chan.
Comrade, Listen! The Glorious Commonwealth's first Airship has been compromised! Who is the saboteur? Who can be saved? Uncover what the passengers are hiding and write the grisly conclusion of its final hours in an open-ended, player-driven adventure. Dziekujemy! -- Karaski: What Goes Up...

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement