5 ms·

Nice jab with (what seems to be) an allusion to the New Jersey bridge-closing scandal that engulfed Gov. Chris Christie: "... like blaming drivers on a bridge

by dctoedt 12y ago

Nice jab with (what seems to be) an allusion to the New Jersey bridge-closing scandal that engulfed Gov. Chris Christie: "... like blaming drivers on a bridge for traffic jams when you're the one who decided to leave three lanes closed during rush hour."

awda 12y ago
I'd only change it to "... blaming drivers on your toll bridge when you're the one ..." The drivers (customers) are paying for the bridge!
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  Isn't that true with all bridges though? You don't have to pay for each use, but you sure paid for the construction and potentially the upkeep (or are likely to have paid).
  - aroch 12y ago
    Some bridges, such as the Seattle Lake Washington bridge, require a toll to cross even though they're on a toll-free highway.
  - awda 12y ago
    This is going very tangential, but no, not all bridges are directly paid for only by people driving on them. To make public bridges into an ISP analogy, imagine: municipal and state taxes as well as tax revenue from other states (via Federal highway dollars) pay for a municipal broadband network. You may or may not actually use the service, and you pay for it either way. You likely don't have any other choice of ISP. And it's not-for-profit, and the general public and lawmakers constantly clamor and legislate for better service at lower prices.
    - jdhzzz 12y ago
      Although not true, I always liked to think that taxes on my vehicle, fuel, and tolls paid for the infrastructure upon which I drive. I have no idea whether those are sufficient, but I'll bet in my state they state of high taxes and crappy infrastructure they are more than enough.
      - tomkarlo 12y ago
        Generally, the taxes and tolls levied on drivers only pay for ~50% of US road spending - the balance comes out of the general tax pool on both drivers and non-drivers, so it's (arguably) heavily subsidized. (But one could argue that non-drivers benefit from the road system in terms of things delivered to them by truck, etc.)
        antsar 12y ago
        > non-drivers benefit from the road system in terms of things delivered to them by truck Perhaps, but they pay a delivery company for that, which pays taxes for its trucks to use those roads.
        vajrabum 12y ago
        Yes, once again, at about 50% of the cost of maintaining the provided road.
- roc 12y ago
  Sure, but they're only using the bridge to drive to McDonalds. It's McDonalds generating all that traffic -- they should pay the bridge operator too! /sarcasm.
  - rodedwards 12y ago
    They do. Property taxes.
    - jjoonathan 12y ago
      Seeing as ISPs also receive money from the government and Netflix pays taxes, you could make the same pointless observation about Netflix and Verizon. But you shouldn't. This discussion is about a direct company-to-company attempted shakedown, not inefficient procurement.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      I'm not sure you mean to argue for a publicly funded Internet, but that's basically what this implies.
      - tankenmate 12y ago
        You've already got that as the government already pays subsidies. I'm all for basic infrastructure to be collectively owned; be it co-ops, collectives, not for profits or even the government (local, national etc). This is the way it is for roads, rubbish, sewerage, etc. If you want a premium / luxury service then feel free to pay extra. Contract out support, maintenance, sales for the infrastructure by all means, but the ownership should be a collective of the users.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      Property taxes tied to the level of traffic destined for a particular commercial location? This is the first I've heard of something like this, can you tell me more?
      - rodedwards 12y ago
- SeoxyS 12y ago
  I'd say it's like blaming Toyota for the traffic jams when you close lanes on the bay bridge. Or alternatively like planing the SF Giants or AT&T Park for the traffic jams when you close lanes on the bay bridge.
tinalumfoil 12y ago
I don't see the advantage of a Netflix throwing a political jab at Chris Christie when in a statement about something entirely unrelated. It would just serve to make Christie supporters turn on Netflix. As far as I'm aware only 2 lanes were closed and Christie, nor his staff, said anything about blaming the drivers. Despite the similarities, it seems to me like this was just an analogy, nothing more.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Christie supporters turn on Netflix? Doubtful. How about the rest of the nation sees Verizon as a corrupt entity that's willing to screw over it's own constituency for dollars?
- caycep 12y ago
  If Chris Christie is addicted to House of Cards, they're probably safe
  - SilasX 12y ago
    Yes, but in that case, his enemies won't be!

by dctoedt 12y ago

awda 12y ago

I'd only change it to "... blaming drivers on your toll bridge when you're the one ..." The drivers (customers) are paying for the bridge!

will_work4tears 12y ago
Isn't that true with all bridges though? You don't have to pay for each use, but you sure paid for the construction and potentially the upkeep (or are likely to have paid).
- aroch 12y ago
  Some bridges, such as the Seattle Lake Washington bridge, require a toll to cross even though they're on a toll-free highway.
- awda 12y ago
  This is going very tangential, but no, not all bridges are directly paid for only by people driving on them. To make public bridges into an ISP analogy, imagine: municipal and state taxes as well as tax revenue from other states (via Federal highway dollars) pay for a municipal broadband network. You may or may not actually use the service, and you pay for it either way. You likely don't have any other choice of ISP. And it's not-for-profit, and the general public and lawmakers constantly clamor and legislate for better service at lower prices.
  - jdhzzz 12y ago
    Although not true, I always liked to think that taxes on my vehicle, fuel, and tolls paid for the infrastructure upon which I drive. I have no idea whether those are sufficient, but I'll bet in my state they state of high taxes and crappy infrastructure they are more than enough.
    - tomkarlo 12y ago
      Generally, the taxes and tolls levied on drivers only pay for ~50% of US road spending - the balance comes out of the general tax pool on both drivers and non-drivers, so it's (arguably) heavily subsidized. (But one could argue that non-drivers benefit from the road system in terms of things delivered to them by truck, etc.)
      - antsar 12y ago
        > non-drivers benefit from the road system in terms of things delivered to them by truck Perhaps, but they pay a delivery company for that, which pays taxes for its trucks to use those roads.
        vajrabum 12y ago
        Yes, once again, at about 50% of the cost of maintaining the provided road.
roc 12y ago
Sure, but they're only using the bridge to drive to McDonalds. It's McDonalds generating all that traffic -- they should pay the bridge operator too! /sarcasm.
- rodedwards 12y ago
  They do. Property taxes.
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    Seeing as ISPs also receive money from the government and Netflix pays taxes, you could make the same pointless observation about Netflix and Verizon. But you shouldn't. This discussion is about a direct company-to-company attempted shakedown, not inefficient procurement.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I'm not sure you mean to argue for a publicly funded Internet, but that's basically what this implies.
    - tankenmate 12y ago
      You've already got that as the government already pays subsidies. I'm all for basic infrastructure to be collectively owned; be it co-ops, collectives, not for profits or even the government (local, national etc). This is the way it is for roads, rubbish, sewerage, etc. If you want a premium / luxury service then feel free to pay extra. Contract out support, maintenance, sales for the infrastructure by all means, but the ownership should be a collective of the users.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    Property taxes tied to the level of traffic destined for a particular commercial location? This is the first I've heard of something like this, can you tell me more?
    - rodedwards 12y ago
SeoxyS 12y ago
I'd say it's like blaming Toyota for the traffic jams when you close lanes on the bay bridge. Or alternatively like planing the SF Giants or AT&T Park for the traffic jams when you close lanes on the bay bridge.

tinalumfoil 12y ago

I don't see the advantage of a Netflix throwing a political jab at Chris Christie when in a statement about something entirely unrelated. It would just serve to make Christie supporters turn on Netflix. As far as I'm aware only 2 lanes were closed and Christie, nor his staff, said anything about blaming the drivers. Despite the similarities, it seems to me like this was just an analogy, nothing more.

r00fus 12y ago
Christie supporters turn on Netflix? Doubtful. How about the rest of the nation sees Verizon as a corrupt entity that's willing to screw over it's own constituency for dollars?
caycep 12y ago
If Chris Christie is addicted to House of Cards, they're probably safe
- SilasX 12y ago
  Yes, but in that case, his enemies won't be!