Jump to content

PythonFanPA

Honored Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    2,390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by PythonFanPA

  1. If its that stupid Housewives/Cat meme - *ABSOLUTELY* the latter, I'm sick to death of that one and was about 2 days in from the first time I started seeing those. 🤮
  2. Between Yosemite & Shoshone ironically that's 2 of the spots we'll be visiting on our ~2.5 week West US trip next year (though sadly Yosemite Falls will likely be mostly if not completely dried out by the time we're there). We'll re-visit Multnomah Falls again as well on our loop back around to SLC on the last leg of the trip before Twin Falls/SRC/Shoshone.
  3. Turbo Lift https://www.wimp.com/star-treks-turbolift-concept-to-become-a-reality-in-2016/ (Don't know if this has been put into service anywhere, but thought this was pretty cool upon discovery) Edit: appears its on its way in Canada after certification is finalized: https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/technology/2018/09/revolutionary-multi-elevator-system-headed-canada
  4. My point actually *was* more 'commodity' based/driven as you said, because as a consumer that's ultimately what I care about. If you end up with only one satellite tv carrier, that's more of a smaller sub-sample/pseudo-monopoly,...all that's really happened is that one piece of a much larger contextual pie has been drilled down to one option, because as I stated (and snake went even further in his response than I thought of at the time), while you may only have one sat-based option, I still have a great deal of options/choices for tv/media viewing if that happens, and that one piece of the pie is still competing against all the other angles/pieces. You can't truly claim a monopoly until your only gateway to the end-result product or service you're wanting runs through one single company/controller. As for satellite radio, regardless of how many times they throw out the bone of availability in cars (including my own - I'm not a subscriber), it still doesn't carry remotely the kind of service demand that tv/media consumption or wireless phone/data availability does. You're talking around ~10% of the US population there going by rd's numbers in the post above compared to, again, the vast majority of the population being cell service customers. So, while it may be a monopoly, its certainly not a monopoly on the same scale of comparison that consumer demand shows that it really warrants (nor does it seem that there is movement towards) the FCC stepping back in and breaking it up. Gwyneth Paltrow has some kooky personal health company with some truly wacked out ideas, one of which is the supposed health benefits of women placing jade eggs in their vaginas, but if she and her company corners the market on the source and availability of all jade eggs in existence, I don't necessarily expect some federal org/entity to come and try and step in to break that up either. (Disclaimer: yes, the scope of the demand for this - or, God help us if I'm wrong here - is exponentially smaller even than satellite radio, but - underscoring my bottom line point with a bit of humor here, so you know I'm just waging in a bit of friendly debate given the response. 😉 ) If you ended up with only one cellular service/wireless data provider, you actually do end up with a true monopoly however over a most-of-the-population demand/relied on product/service. At least, unless/until we reached a point where sat-phone technology/cost/availability/marketing/etc has reached a competitive state to cellular service, or publicly available indoor and outdoor data-only availability (land and/or sat based) reaches a point it competes on the same scale as present-day cellular wireless providers, and everything suddenly trends towards or moves to purely data/VOIP inter connectivity devices. Don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly not trying to defend the FCC per se here, and I'm all for more (caveat: quality at least) choice whenever and wherever it can happen. All I was trying to underscore in response to your original comment is that, in fairness, it *is* an apples/oranges comparison in terms of scope as it relates to how you were weighing/comparing things in your statement, and I'd suspect the FCC would have the same field of view - regardless of what my or your own personal feelings or perspectives on that fact might be.
×
×
  • Create New...