benlorenzetti

9 ms·

31.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
So if data from company A costs the ISP more that the same quantity of data from company B to get a hold of, how ultimately should this cost be passed on? Separate metering for end users? Targeted agreements with large hosts? Same metering
32.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
I'm talking about the 1st amendment and the commerce clause, together and where they conflict. Sorry if I went a little abstract in a different series of comments.
33.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
So city/state ownership and state level regulation? Sounds good, no first amendment trouble there.
34.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
So lets say the ISP does not have a business relationship with either Netflix (because its illegal under net-neutrality) or with Netflix's existing ISPs because there are others in between. But the path used to route movie packets is e
35.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
The Feds can regulate wire fraud--that is definitely commerce. Sorry you are very bent on misrepresenting me.
36.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
Why do you think we have a right to interfere in the business and choose how they make money and administer the network? Because they are a monopoly? Then I agree we should break them up. Because they are a utility? Then I agree cities and
37.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
>> Even without the Title II rules, the FCC still has the very legal power you object to; it is simply choosing not to exercise that power. The law as it is currently written allows the FCC to change the classification of ISPs back to
38.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
I still find the two statements equivalent if you ignore the positive and negative sounding spin. As you point out, the market will always choose the simpler option. How could an ISP have a business relationship with every server in the wor
39.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
Care to elaborate? My understanding is ISPs can internally implement or not implement any QoS that makes economic sense. Also that was my lesser point. Can you address my larger point about jurisdiction for regulating ISPs?
40.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
I think any government involvement in telecommunications is bad, but there is no denying ISPs are monopoly businesses by nature. So then the question becomes, what is the appropriate level of state ownership? For example the wireless spectr
41.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
>> >> If two parties want to communicate with each other, why does it matters which side gets what percentage of the bill? It makes sense for the health of the network for big companies like Netflix to have business relationship
42.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085
43.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
Its really a very simple argument, for me at least: this shouldn't be regulated at the federal level. State and city regulations (or even outright ownership) are fine though. Heck the cities literally own the streets. Beyond that, how
44.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
Corporate fascism...I didn't even know that was a thing. A quick wikipedia read seems to suggest it isn't fascism. (corporatism != fascism)
45.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
I agree with you and its annoying when people say you sound like a corporate shill. I don't think it should be federal level government doing net neutrality. I worry about these studies too, because I know my "unique comment"
46.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
Just because organizations have...organization and heirarchy doesn't mean they don't have a goal, or government and politics dont have policies. I agree though about school being at least half to keep the kids locked up and out of
47.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
Inflation is more a tax on wage income than existing wealth, because investments will inflate in addition to their productive growth returns.
48.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
We have had industrial shift hours for nearly two centuries, and before that in the Army and Navy. Yet large organizations are still implementing new shift/watch schedules to (or sometimes purportedly to) improve health and alertness b
49.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
But why do we "print more money" when inflation is too low? A main reason is so that government debt can grow perpetually/exponentially. Hence a hidden tax taken from wages. Opinions are my own not my employers.
50.
by benlorenzetti 8y ago
It may be naivety, but perhaps it's just clever marketing. As pointed out, any government has a short term incentive to retain maximum control over its currency . But if its citizens think the currency is being mismanaged and increasin
51.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
The trend of history since babel seems to be going in this direction. If there is eventually a universal common tongue this rational will be proven right.
52.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
This is probably the raisin d'être of homoiconicity but it's more specific a concept than that. It's a conceptual property on the grammar of the language: there need to be control characters/words in the grammar like spa
53.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
I'm a little rusty remembering my compilers course, but do you mean separating syntax from inflection? So that you can parse just based on a "syntax grammar" and then you can trivially assume the inflection based on where thi
54.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
The articles' subtitle: >> Males are enrolling in higher education at alarmingly low rates, and some colleges are working hard to reverse the trend. This may not be alarming depending on how you weigh the value added by college.
55.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
It is good for those who have current debt. But bad for that same class of people in the society who will want to borrow in the future. The forceful voiding of long term contracts is rarely good for the population as a whole.
56.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
I agree that bitcoins problems include not having relatively fixed-rate use cases in the future, like paying taxes and your salary. And you make a good point that it will be socially easier for society to adopt a new currency if early inve
57.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
On the other hand this helped attract early investment and is a reason Bitcoin initially rose to such heights. There is nothing wrong with a deflationary currency once the rate of supply side deflation becomes small. Worthy investments will
58.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
My previous reply is being down voted a lot so I'll try again and compare them. These tariffs were effectively a tax on slavery and a redistribution of income from agriculturalists in the south to industrialists in the north. The major
59.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
Hi I wanted to wait a day to have a more personal conversation with you, I hope you see this post. Idk if you are involved in any union leadership roles, but I am a single earner below the U.S. median income in a rust belt state. I also sav
60.
by benlorenzetti 9y ago
Either way, my point is that tariffs and protectionism had profound economic impact benefiting the industrial north and Midwest at that time. I'm not sure if people even at that time knew which of the two was the more prominent cause o

More ›