On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Nathan McCorkle <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems to me this is another clue indicative of a general trend to > be less and less efficient with using computer technology. > Discussion of efficiency becomes moot when we see that the USA is in 35th place and lagging behind most western European countries when it comes to bandwidth. High speed internet connectivity isn't merely a personal luxury -- it's now considered to be part of critical infrastructure and should be treated as such. Fast-loading cat videos in 1080p are only a side effect of improving infrastructure :) [http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2013-14.pdf - pg 514/515] I would argue that flaky/slow connections, high prices, etc. all contribute to a severe loss in efficiency both in terms of money and time. One of the underlying goals of redefining the term 'broadband' is to try and force telecom companies to actually build out the infrastructure we keep paying for: "Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it." [http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html] It's obvious that the 'free market' has failed to serve people's needs. Of course, I doubt that the US government is willing to step in and fix the problem. Even this sort of pressure, where existing services are effectively downgraded, is not enough to motivate telecoms to do the right thing. Why would they? They're sitting on piles of money, regional monopolies, and and have nothing to lose.
_______________________________________________ dorkbotpdx-blabber mailing list [email protected] http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/dorkbotpdx-blabber
