Agreed. I don't like any of his other views, but if I accept that privacy and surveillance is a dominant problem today, it might not be a wasted vote to give it to Rand.
Single-issue voters on subjects like abortion have not gotten their desired result, but they've sure as hell succeeded in making abortion a hotly debated topic...for 40 years. I'm bored of that subject, but I would not mind talking about my civil rights for a while. Heck, even 40 years would be OK.
Any other candidate that aligns with Rand on privacy would also stand a good chance to get my vote.
Remember when AT&T said they were "opening" their network, (which they actually did because it was part of the 700MHz license terms, and because their phones use the GSM standard, which means that any SIM-ready GSM device could already be put on their network.)
This is something to think about for all those (primarily Libertarians) who constantly cheer for "small government!!". You see, much like an investment porfolio, a government functions best when it is larger, and has more diverse interests represented. For example, voters in NYC would not be in favor of Wyoming's gag law, but their opinions don't matter to the state of WY, and thus small government also means small-minded.
Think of all the studies that show diversified thinking results in better decisions. Small gov't ignores that.
Think about a resource-extraction state, like Alaska. Do you think Alaska is "balanced" in their governance when choices are between protecting the environment, and extracting more oil or trees? Well, since most people in the state are paid either directly or indirectly by resource extraction, they get lots of "drill baby drill", and nothing else.
Ever see a mining town that was anti-mining? Iowa is corn first, WY is cows first, Alaska is resource extraction first, and damn the consequences. Great!
This is not an argument for "one world government", much as a stock porfolio diversity plan does not need thousands of stocks. A dozen or more provides adequate diversity. A nation as diverse and as large as the USA has plenty of diversity built-in. But distilled down to the state level, local priorities may be biased by local enterprise.
You're example is a fixed broadband. That is relatively commoditized, but this article is wireless. I'm not clear if we're on the same page or not. But there is more to wireless competition (and fixed) than just price.
Some key differentiators for wireless: - network coverage footprint - speeds across that footprint - customer service quality - customer service wait times - retail, brick and mortar presence - device availability, exclusivity - Free included apps, or even better, lack of those apps - Faster OS updates for Android phones - SIM locking phones or not - Offer subsidized model, or not with discount (like T-Mo) - content exclusivity (VZW has NFL) - international roaming inclusion - wifi offload inclusion - better, simpler billing - better bundles, family plan - integration with IoT - etc, etc.
If a carrier got all the above right for me, I'd gladly pay them multiples of the cheapest offer. Heck, I pay AT&T about 3X for my AT&T lines versus what I pay Republic for my 1 line there. There's a reason.
I hope you're kidding, or just misusing the word "evolving".
I think you may mean "adapting" or changing our culture.
Because evolution is a much slower process, takes millenia, and requires those "less fit" to not reproduce and/or die. Because of our healthcare and our somewhat monogamous family structure, many of the "less fit" take their turn at reproduction. I'm not sure how humans are likely to evolve. It seems that natural selection has been "denaturalized" by humans. Our rates of reproduction are also odd, such as 8 children per woman in Uganda to the sub 2/per rates we see in developed nations.
Karl, I fundamentally don't agree with your argument here.
Let's abstract it, and not talk about VZW and Tmo at all.
Businesses do NOT have to compete on price. Not at all. Apple doesn't, Faberge doesn't, Nike doesn't, LL Bean doesn't, etc.
You can compete on a number of qualities depending on the product. Yes, price will always play a role, but customers have proven that they will choose a higher priced product if other factors are considered superior. Quality, differentiation, new features, exclusivity, location, speed, service, cachet, brand, accessibility, privacy...these are all features that could affect the price consumers are willing to pay for a product.
He outlined three specific concepts for companies to succeed, only one of these was price. While I don't accept his argument as 100% law, his arguments are pretty useful to disabuse the notion that competition MUST always be on price.
Frankly, the entire economy would be a race to the bottom if it were so. There would be little differentiation, no innovation, and little quality if your hypothesis from this article were correct. It would be a sad, sad outcome.
It's not extreme. Either you have NN, or you don't. A "little bit of a walled garden" is immediately 100% NOT a neutral network.
That's the funny thing about stuff like NN, pregnancy, binary bits. You either got it, or you don't.
I'm actually not dead-against Internet.org, but I sure don't think it offers NN. I think it *could* be OK, so long as the walled garden content providers PAY the carrier the same rate per MB to carry the data to the customers as the customers would pay for any other content, AND the users are in no way blocked from other content. This would make it like 1-800 phone numbers where the businesses pay the toll.