This has gone so far as to children being reported to the cops over being unescorted by their parents while playing outside. WTF?
Some parents equip their children with little cards explaining that they're not lost or in trouble, but that they're allowed to be outside on their own. Sad that we've gotten to the point that that is necessary.
On the other hand... I (male) was at a park with my kids. I was sitting on a swing while they played on some other equipment (so I was not definitively there with someone else). A little girl wandered over, I asked if she wanted to swing with me and she said yes, so I put her on my lap and we swung for a while. Her mom came around and didn't seem to have any issue with it. So not everyone freaks out about things, it's just that we hear about it when they do.
Sometimes you get a wild-man... Granby is too small to have its own SWAT team.
So are you saying all towns should have a SWAT team, no matter how small? You're saying a single incident in Granby's history means they should now have a SWAT team because there might be a second incident someday? I'm not certain those are your positions, but if so I think they're quite misguided.
The problem was that due to this "every life is precious" method that authorities then practiced, airplane hijackers around 1970 took full advantage of this, and hijackings grew to epidemic proportions...
So the political establishment changed course, and felt it was better to "send a message" -- even if it meant innocent people being killed -- on the theory that less would die in the long run. And so they developed the Special Weapons Attack Team (as SWAT originally stood for) based on standard military methods, and made sure that not only were no ransoms ever paid, but perpetrators had no chance of getting out of there alive.
Apparently almost none of that is true: "According to the Historical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, the term "SWAT" was used as an acronym for the "Special Weapons and Tactics" established as a 100-man specialized unit in 1964 by the Philadelphia Police Department in response to an alarming increase in bank robberies."
The term "hijack" does not appear in the wikipedia entry, it's all about urban crime situations. Of course WP isn't perfect, so maybe you have another reference.
Bernstein is an WS investment research firm and likely has $ (or its clients have $) in incumbent operators.
That is not enough to explain this, unless they're also stupid. Investors in the incumbents should be loudly warning about the coming wave of cord cutters so the companies can do something about it, not sweeping it under the rug so that they ignore it until it's too late and the company tanks.
On top of that the 'limited content' that is enjoyed by cord-cutters
It's a classic dismissal of new services and products by entrenched players. It's limited. It's too expensive. It's too niche. It's not useful enough. And then fairly quickly it becomes good enough for a lot of people to supplant the incumbent service, before they even take it seriously.
Nobody needs it all. But if it's all there, then whatever it is I do want will be there. If there are a lot of things missing (which there are from Netflix, and I imagine any service you pick) then there are most likely things I want that aren't there.
That's not how natural monopolies work. It's naturally a monopoly, not because of any outside forces. It would not be efficient or likely profitable to have a bunch of competitors laying their own infrastructure for last mile internet service. The infrastructure is not going to be a competitive market. It should be closely regulated, if not publicly owned, with competition at the service level.
Maybe a start up could partner with an electrical company to refine a some sort of ethernet over power wan
Never say never, but more than one have already tried and it didn't get anywhere.
Also a truly free market abhors monopolies and they are not sustainable and tend to break apart without regulations creating barriers of entry.
If you're saying that a market free of regulation tends to break up monopolies and result in vigorous competition, you have it exactly backwards. Over time, markets tend toward consolidation and oligopoly if not regulated.
It doesn't really matter unless Lorillard's trademark applies for the business of bars, nightclubs, etc. I'm not certain this is the right one but all the ones I could find that look even close are just for cigarettes.