3 ms·

We already have a tremendous amount of socioeconomic problems when it comes to housing; only those who are privileged enough to be able to afford housing near g

by selmnoo 12y ago

We already have a tremendous amount of socioeconomic problems when it comes to housing; only those who are privileged enough to be able to afford housing near good schools, good communities can get good education and a stable/safe life, etc., why let the internet be a repeat of this? I say good on those cities trying to make things fair. It might make the difference of the next Zuck being from a middle-class household who in fact has the same speed and experience on the internet as everyone, rather than another privileged Harvard-educated brat who has the familiarity with the new and the fast, who is better able to see the frontier of internet technologies and is thus able to innovate without as many obstructions. The current way, the rich are in some way subsidizing fast internet for the poor, and telecom companies are deprived of high profits. That is excellent.

rayiner 12y ago
Depriving the telecom companies of profits just means that investors will take their capital somewhere more profitable, like peddling advertising to kids: http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin. Shareholders will do things like encourage Verizon to sell off all its wireline assets to get rid of less-profitable business lines and unionized workforces: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Verizon-to-Sell-All-Landline-Assets-117774 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz.... As for cross-subsidization, it's bad because it obscures the trade-offs that are being made. I'd be happy to pay tax money to subsidize internet for low-income households. But I want that on my tax bill, not my cable bill.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  > I'd be happy to pay tax money to subsidize internet for low-income households. But I want that on my tax bill, not my cable bill. But you know it as well as I do that that's not happening. I had to hear it from my grandma, Rush Limbaugh, and about 4 or 5 neighbors on my street about Sandra Fluke having the nerve to suggest contraceptive drugs be included as part of healthcare - can you imagine the kind of outrage you'd see at the idea of people's internet being put on your tax bill? That's never happening, it's not a politically viable solution, full stop. Heck, I know even very smart and educated people who like to regard the internet as a waste of time with nothing of worth. > Depriving the telecom companies of profits just means that investors will take their capital somewhere more profitable, like peddling advertising to kids: http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin. You're very correct there. Personally, I'm convinced that Facebook is a house of cards that will soon fall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag) and I hope and pray that it does so very soon. And that it'll take down a lot of others too, with it. I have no good answers here, I just people were a little more assertive in spewing away anything with the FB logo. Let's hope all of this advertising model is a passing phase and we get over it.
harryh 12y ago
You're certainly entitled to that point of view but then you have no right to complain that the companies in question aren't investing as much in infrastructure as you'd like them to.

by selmnoo 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Depriving the telecom companies of profits just means that investors will take their capital somewhere more profitable, like peddling advertising to kids: http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin. Shareholders will do things like encourage Verizon to sell off all its wireline assets to get rid of less-profitable business lines and unionized workforces: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Verizon-to-Sell-All-Landline-Assets-117774 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz.... As for cross-subsidization, it's bad because it obscures the trade-offs that are being made. I'd be happy to pay tax money to subsidize internet for low-income households. But I want that on my tax bill, not my cable bill.

selmnoo 12y ago
> I'd be happy to pay tax money to subsidize internet for low-income households. But I want that on my tax bill, not my cable bill. But you know it as well as I do that that's not happening. I had to hear it from my grandma, Rush Limbaugh, and about 4 or 5 neighbors on my street about Sandra Fluke having the nerve to suggest contraceptive drugs be included as part of healthcare - can you imagine the kind of outrage you'd see at the idea of people's internet being put on your tax bill? That's never happening, it's not a politically viable solution, full stop. Heck, I know even very smart and educated people who like to regard the internet as a waste of time with nothing of worth. > Depriving the telecom companies of profits just means that investors will take their capital somewhere more profitable, like peddling advertising to kids: http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin http://ycharts.com/companies/FB/profit_margin. You're very correct there. Personally, I'm convinced that Facebook is a house of cards that will soon fall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag) and I hope and pray that it does so very soon. And that it'll take down a lot of others too, with it. I have no good answers here, I just people were a little more assertive in spewing away anything with the FB logo. Let's hope all of this advertising model is a passing phase and we get over it.

harryh 12y ago

You're certainly entitled to that point of view but then you have no right to complain that the companies in question aren't investing as much in infrastructure as you'd like them to.