Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

Wrong the coupler acoustically couples using flexible rubber which can accommodate various shapes.

Like an iPhone?

OMFG why are you so stupid.

[gribbles]

Wrong the coupler acoustically couples using flexible rubber which can accommodate various shapes.

Like an iPhone?

Yeah. You need an adapter, though.

[tufty]

Jesus fuck. It's difficult to imagine so much wrong in one post.

a - In the early 1980s, phones didn't look like iPhones. They looked almost exactly like the kind of thing you'd expect to fit on that particular model of acoustic coupler. If they had looked like iPhones, the acoustic coupler would look like something that would fit on an iPhone.
b- acoustic couplers were only the bit that coupled your modem to the phone line.
c - direct wired connections only made sense when phone connections were via a plug, rather than a hard-wired point you weren't allowed to touch (around 1987 out in the fens, but I lived in flats in the mid-90s in London with hard-wired phone points)
d - even pre direct connection, modems were electronic. As opposed to being made of wet string, coal and the sweat of the oppressed, or whatever the fuck it is you're assuming.
e - AFAICR, modem prices only started dipping below $1/bit/sec (exchange $ for £ and multiply by 1.5 for the UK market) at the end of the '80s

[pogo]

a - In the early 1980s, phones didn't look like iPhones. They looked almost exactly like the kind of thing you'd expect to fit on that particular model of acoustic coupler. If they had looked like iPhones, the acoustic coupler would look like something that would fit on an iPhone.

That was my point - the acoustic coupler looks like that as all phones looked the same. Few phones would work with one today. And the rest I know. Direct wired connections were only practical and legal once your phone plugged into the wall. 'electonic' isn't that precise, but they don't really need it, they're just modems.

It was more than just price, convenience and speed. Once your modem was plugged into the phone socket, via a splitter or dedicated line, it was in control of the whole process. It could make calls, it could receive calls. It could on the same line send and receive faxes. This was all done by software: you just hit 'connect' and it did everything, dialling into a BBS, AOL, CompuServe and eventually "The Internet". Modems got faster and cheaper seemingly every year. Home internet would not have taken off, or would have taken off much more slowly, without them.

[(o)(o)]

That was my point - the acoustic coupler looks like that as all phones looked the same.

So... what.. couplers should have been designed to work with phones 30 years into the future ?

Direct wired connections were only practical and legal once your phone plugged into the wall.

Oh right yeah so, businesses governments and universities were dreaming they had wired connections in the 1970s were they.

It was more than just price, convenience and speed. Once your modem was plugged into the phone socket, via a splitter or dedicated line, it was in control of the whole process. It could make calls, it could receive calls. It could on the same line send and receive faxes. This was all done by software: you just hit 'connect' and it did everything, dialling into a BBS, AOL, CompuServe and eventually "The Internet". Modems got faster and cheaper seemingly every year. Home internet would not have taken off, or would have taken off much more slowly, without them.

[pogo]

Well, just emphasising my point that before privatisation BT sucked. You can argue it wasn't privatisation but associated legislation, but that legislation was only passed due to privatisation; as is often the case actually selling it off wasn't as significant as legislation before and laws and regulations afterwards to transform it from a state monopoly to a competitive, responsive business.

BR underwent something similar but in its case the government had no choice; a 1991 EU directive forced governments to separate the track and trains, then allow any train operator including foreign one to use the tracks. This didn't require privatisation but it pretty much decided how it would be structured if privatised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Directive_91/440

It's interesting background but it's also relevant to the earlier discussion, as it seems not all countries have been keen to comply. A handful are still to carry out the directive, and are taking so long they're being dragged to court by the EU.

The laggards are listed here and include two mentioned eariler, Spain and France. So that's another reason not to copy what they're doing (apart from them being economic basket cases): what they're doing is illegal.

It's also relevant as one complaint is that foreign companies, including state owned ones, can come over here and run our railways, but our firms can't do the same abroad. But this asymmetry exists largely as other countries' systems are not as open as ours, illegally so. We can only hope the EU succeeds in its legal actions to force the countries to take action.

[tufty]

It's also relevant as one complaint is that foreign companies, including state owned ones, can come over here and run our railways, but our firms can't do the same abroad. But this asymmetry exists largely as other countries' systems are not as open as ours, illegally so. We can only hope the EU succeeds in its legal actions to force the countries to take action.

SNCF make do with a subsidy of around 3.5 Billion Euros, and provide a (mostly) cheaper and more coherent service than the UK can manage, over far longer journeys.

Frankly, I hope the EU fail miserably in forcing their neoliberal agenda. France, for example, *have* separated operations and infrastructure (owned by RFF, Réseau Ferré de France), but apparently not "enough" for the EU.

And the main complaint is not that UK countries can't go into other countries, but that the French and German (amongst others) governments, via their national railway companies, are not only allowed, but encouraged, to run the profitable bits of the UK's train system, but the UK government is restricted to the absolute basket cases nobody can even pretend will ever be profitable without explicitly making it clear "our profits will come from the UK taxpayer's pocket, at zero risk".

[gravy]

Frankly, I hope the EU fail miserably in forcing their neoliberal agenda. France, for example, *have* separated operations and infrastructure (owned by RFF, Réseau Ferré de France), but apparently not "enough" for the EU.

It may be enough but it's not clear. France were found guilty but the case wouldn't take into account new legislation passed prior to the court case meant to address the issue.

This is all a red herring though. You can abide by the rules and have nationalised infrastructure and run a subsidised, national rail carrier on that infrastructure. You just might have to allow equal access to the tracks to other companies but they have no rights to state subsidies.

[Dio]

Well, just emphasising my point that before privatisation BT sucked. You can argue it wasn't privatisation but associated legislation, but that legislation was only passed due to privatisation; as is often the case actually selling it off wasn't as significant as legislation before and laws and regulations afterwards to transform it from a state monopoly to a competitive, responsive business.

But talking about modems to make the point is a load of bollocks. Any putative 'problem' in the UK digital communications market was nothing to do with marking of equipment and all that crap (indeed, BT continued with equipment marking for many years after it was privatised).

The relative success of the modem / BBS culture in the US in the early 80s is because of the peculiar national quirk that is the free local phone call. The late 90s 'success' of the modem in the UK is because the Internet became too big to ignore. Any correlation between BT's privatisation and the increase in popularity of modems is, I would contend, non-causal.

[KlaxonCow]

It's also relevant as one complaint is that foreign companies, including state owned ones, can come over here and run our railways

Yes, those filthy foreigners. Coming over here and running our railways, living off benefits and sleeping with our white women. Send them back to Bongo-bongo-land, I say!

[gravy]

Probably worth reiterating that the complaint is the UK government are paying for nationalised rail already.

It's just another nation's.

[Darkflame]

Changing the topic a bit, kinda curious whats happening in Switzerland?
Thanks to their direct-ish democracy system, there seems to be a serious chance for citizens to get a guaranteed minimum income. Not wage - minimum income.
According to wikipedia Canada experimented this one in some region to some success, but the results are disputed because citizens knew it was for a limited period.

I really hope this happens because its one of the very rare places and times in the world were this could be done, and it would be a fantastic social experiment. Finally giving some data to the conflicting ideas that "people wont work if they dont have too" vs "people will want to work even if they dont have too"

Strongest argument I see against trying it is their open borders - even if only 1% of people are lazy, you might end up with everyones lazy 1% from the whole of Europe.

[merman]

The Great Coalition Flog-Off Of Everything Not Nailed Down continues!

Remploy, the service for employing disabled people and finding them work is to be privatised, after it had sold off most of its remaining factories when its budget was cut in 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28417882

Esther McVey and "compassionate Conservatism" strikes again.

[adam]

Changing the topic a bit, kinda curious whats happening in Switzerland?
Thanks to their direct-ish democracy system, there seems to be a serious chance for citizens to get a guaranteed minimum income. Not wage - minimum income.
According to wikipedia Canada experimented this one in some region to some success, but the results are disputed because citizens knew it was for a limited period.

I really hope this happens because its one of the very rare places and times in the world were this could be done, and it would be a fantastic social experiment. Finally giving some data to the conflicting ideas that "people wont work if they dont have too" vs "people will want to work even if they dont have too"

Strongest argument I see against trying it is their open borders - even if only 1% of people are lazy, you might end up with everyones lazy 1% from the whole of Europe.

the current swiss dole is a max 8000 euro a month - it's 70% of your income, and you need to work for a time to qualify
likewise if you move there you can only get residency if you're employed, you can only be self employed after you've lived there 5 years - switzerland is not a full eu member so they don't have to play by the same rules re immigration etc

[Darkflame]

This is different to dole money, its just a flat money to live on, no matter what.

The idea, I think, is to simplify the idea of benefits massively. Dont means test, just ensure every citizen has enough to live on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Fair point about immigration rules though.