@KazWolfe ^

@James you also run into the issue of getting permission to run more cable. E.g. in Seattle CenturyLink is finding it impossible to expand because they have to get permission from every property owner and Comcast can buy just 1 out and then boo, no expansion.

i mean, yeah, i could use wireless, but that's not always an option.

i've used ubiquiti carrier equipment, but deploying that isn't always possible or feasible depending on the case.

No, it's definitely not a panacea.

But most people don't even know that's an option

@KazWolfe Right, plus FCC issues with frequency allocations. And that's EXPENSIVE. If Verizon could offer Comcast quality internet wirelessly, they would.

let alone one that is more or less unregulated.

@James true

I don't think UBNT sells any carrier gear that requires a permit more expensive than $100 and "must issue"

(Instead of "can issue")

iirc it's all public bands

(2.4, 5, etc)

I think they have something that requires one because of the strength, not the band.

it puts out too much power or something

oh, true.

@KazWolfe well that's inefficient for an ISP

@Seth though it flies under the regulatory radar for the most part.

but still, it's basically $100 and they have to issue it because they just want to know that someone is broadcasting that much power in that area so they know who to call.

@KazWolfe true, but the power requirements to actually get that anywhere would put you right back under the FCC's eye

You're basically paying a filing fee so they can call you if something goes haywire in the neighborhood, saving them the trouble of sending a truck.

@Seth You can do 15-20 miles without needing a permit for that i think.

That's plenty, even if you don't have direct line of sight.

that's how my local current isp works.

Anyway, regulations hurt and help ISPs right now.

all air backbone stuff.

Some things would get easier (initial startup), others would get harder (consumer protection).

(to name a few)

EPA exists because Cleveland had a river burn while a reporter was in town with a camera.

Do they need to exist? Not in its current state. It's poorly run and doesn't have teeth. Although, if it had teeth, I'd probably say that it is abused.

My particular brand of libertarian is that the government should have as few responsibilities as possible, and those it does have should be mostly toothless when it comes to domestic things.

Eliminating lobbying would fix a lot of these problems.

^^ there is also that.

Assuming I had the money to set up an air backbone (which is still a significant investment for just hardware), I'd still have each customer paying 300 or more for infra. that doesn't even count the fact that i need to get my own backbones set up (renting tower space, dragging fiber from PoP to said tower, etc)

if you cut lobbying, things would work better.

most regs are corporate interests to keep new isps out.

same reason why the public domain is dead now

Ah, yes. Disney and copyright.

there are still cases where regulations are good, though. you mentioned the epa. if they actually did real work, we'd have more of a handle on climate control preventing corporations from doing what they want.

the problem i think is that corporations just want the ends of turning a profit, and they don't care at all how they get there.

But... it's the people that should be holding them accountable, not the government.

people won't do anything.

If people are pissed with BP for ignoring safety and causing spills, what are they going to do? stop buying BP energy?

who will they go to? chevron, who is no better?

people will go with the cheap option. if bp has the cheap gas, they'll buy BP no matter how evil they are.

sure you'll have the people who actually do follow through with their boycott pledge, but those are a minority.

It's interesting though.

A few years ago, my neighbors boycotted a local store.

They're not around anymore.

> local store

keyword being local. on a small scale, this works. when you get large-scale things going, change becomes more and more impossible.

what we have is several generations who were shown that it doesn't work at a wider scale because communication was hard.

Now, with the internet it's much easier to do that.

er....

Case in point, net neutrality stuff.

there is a lot of false data to sift through.

It used to be that if you wanted to do something at the federal level, you had to get lots of organizers and they had to get people outraged.

Now, you sign up for $political-org-of-choice' internet email lists and you get simple "call people NAOW" emails every few days when something is going on

i mean, yeah, i guess /b/ did get Trump elected.

@James and how many people actually care enough to call?

@KazWolfe Counterexample: Target.

@KazWolfe I don't know numbers, but I know that it was a big part of defeating SOPA/PIPA several years ago.

@NathanOsman counter-counterexample: they're still doing fine.

I missed something, what happened with Target?

@KazWolfe Their profits dropped and they finally added new washrooms.

@James i also think that was all of the content providers threatening to nuke things.

@James They changed their washroom policy, conservative groups boycotted, and Target finally added new washrooms.

At one point, I think they had 1 million customers signed up to boycott.

That's a pretty large scale.

but that's also government, not corporate.

The government has to act, because else the people in power lose power. Companies can say "lol k we don't care"

"The government has to act..." - only because people don't.

The key is education.

in SOPA/PIPA, people did act. And if the government didn't kill the bill, how many people in congress would lose their jobs?

If Comcast decided to implement their own SOPA/PIPA because Disney waved fat stacks at them, everyone who uses Comcast would have no choice.

I don't think it hurts to instill a bit of healthy fear in congress / elected officials. "You will serve your constituents' needs or you will lose your job."

No, it's not. It should be that way.

I agree.

but that doesn't happen

Right now, far too many of them have the attitude, "Yay, everyone has so much confidence in me to do whatever I think is best."

because voters have the "keep the devil you know" mentality, they can get away with doing whatever their lobbies want.

Because we've trained voters that votes don't matter.

Sidenote: isn't it cool how we can discuss political issues without raising flags. Ducks.

(or voters just flat-out don't care)

@KazWolfe Cue my rant for switching to STV.

@NathanOsman Eh. We should still probably move all of this to a different room

Okay.

we used to have a dedicated AU politics room

Probably still do somewhere.

@NathanOsman cue counterrant of "that's never going to happen because why would the people in power abandon the system that got them into power"

chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/31822/… < I could bring that back and just move this all there.

@KazWolfe Hey, we have almost got enough votes here.

@James Sure.

...and we're back.

@NathanOsman are you moving these or should I?

I'll move them.

k.

← 24 messages moved from Ask Ubuntu General Room

← 73 messages moved from Ask Ubuntu General Room

@KazWolfe So boycotts have mixed success in general.

oh, sorry.

i lost the thread.

yes.

this sorta killed it lol

we were talking about lobbyists and STV.

yes.

STV = good idea, not happening

agreed

electoral college in the US was a thing before STV was invented

so unfortunately the US is stuck with that

on a national level at least

yep.

Sorry, i'm digging into a bug at my dayjob.

/customersupport

Yup

lol