Stray thoughts on a sunny Sunday morning
1: Modest proposal: can we change the spelling and/or pronunciation of this word?
Since apparently the standard pronunciation for “nuclear” is too hard for people (actors, journalists, government officials, normal people around town, etc.), I propose that we change the dictionary pronunciation of the word and immediately adopt as standard the preferred “NOOK-yuh-lur.” If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. If you can’t teach ’em, acquiesce to ’em. Also, we should probably change the spelling to “nukular” so as to head off confusion.
2: Has there ever been a greater actor who, this late in his career, had still not won an Oscar?
We watched Finding Neverland last night. Awesome movie – everything I’d heard and read about it was true, and then some. And as always, Johnny Depp was feckin’ amazing. He’s truly one of the most remarkable talents in all of film, and still he has no Academy Awards. He was nominated for Neverland, and also for Pirates of the Caribbean, but no wins. Think about it for a second. Not even a nomination for:
- Chocolat (2000)
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
- Dead Man (1995)
- Don Juan DeMarco (1995)
- Ed Wood (1994)
- What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)
- Benny & Joon (1993)
- Edward Scissorhands (1990)
[sigh] Maybe he’ll win for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (haven’t seen it yet, but I hear he’s incredible, as always) or this new Tim Burton movie (Corpse Bride) or The Rum Diary or one of the new Pirates movies (these last are in production, I think). Or maybe Hollywood will pull a Hank Fonda on him on him, waiting until he’s in the last years of his life before bestowing a token award on him for something lesser (not that he wasn’t deserving for On Golden Pond, but you know how the scramble works – we have to give him an award, and this may be his last film, etc.) Who knows. But from where I sit, Johnny Depp is not only the best living actor who hasn’t won an Oscar, he may well be the greatest actor of his generation, period.
3: And it only took them nine years to get it right!
The godforsaken FCC (a division of AT&T®) finally – finally – got it right on data network regulation, lifting restrictive DSL regulations on the former Bells so that they can compete more effectively in the data services market. Big win for the Bells, big win for customers.
I hope everybody is enjoying their Sunday….
lullaby pit 
Sadly, AT&T doesn’t exist anymore as of a few weeks ago.
Aloha,
Jeff
Sadly, AT&T doesn’t exist anymore as of a few weeks ago.
Aloha,
Jeff
No, but the mentality lingers, I think.
No, but the mentality lingers, I think.
I agree with you on Johnny Depp! but what’s the link for that DSL issue? Mine shows up that you’re trying to send me to a registered-trademark symbol, for some reason…
I agree with you on Johnny Depp! but what’s the link for that DSL issue? Mine shows up that you’re trying to send me to a registered-trademark symbol, for some reason…
DOH!
Try it now.
DOH!
Try it now.
I’d bet most people focus on the first part of this comment, but I’m baffled by your item number 3. How do consumers score a big win by allowing the Bells to chase competitors off their networks with ever-higher rates? Do you really believe the Bells themselves will offer more services, better services and services to smaller areas? Do you believe they will resist the temptation to crank up their prices and kill off their competition? I do have a horse in this race — I use a small DSL provider who re-sells service over lines from one of the Bells. I tried the service from the Baby Bell — their e-mail service chased me right back off again. My small provider offers great support and just about all the features I could think of, but I could easily see their Bell host chasing them away with higher rates. (And btw, the Bell host has benefited — I came back to their local phone service to be able to get DSL.)
I’d bet most people focus on the first part of this comment, but I’m baffled by your item number 3. How do consumers score a big win by allowing the Bells to chase competitors off their networks with ever-higher rates? Do you really believe the Bells themselves will offer more services, better services and services to smaller areas? Do you believe they will resist the temptation to crank up their prices and kill off their competition? I do have a horse in this race — I use a small DSL provider who re-sells service over lines from one of the Bells. I tried the service from the Baby Bell — their e-mail service chased me right back off again. My small provider offers great support and just about all the features I could think of, but I could easily see their Bell host chasing them away with higher rates. (And btw, the Bell host has benefited — I came back to their local phone service to be able to get DSL.)
The Bells have been penalized ever since the Telecom Act was passed, and most consumers were led to believe this was good since the Bells were big old evil monopolies. Which played well, since Americans love an easy story that’s been stripped of all complexity.
The truth is that the regulation of the Bells hurt consumers badly, especially in areas that were uninteresting to new competitors (who most set up shop in lucrative urban biz hubs and ignored everything else). Rural areas, for instance – new companies weren’t interested and the Bells were precluded thanks to twisted interpretations of data transfer rules by the FCC.
New competitors have by and large failed to build out new networks, instead piggybacking Bell nets, and in what way consumers benefit from this odd wholesale poaching arrangements is beyond me. This move will make real competition in DSL/cable markets more of a reality, I think, and in principle I’m just tickled to see a ruling that lets the Bells compete without having their hands tied.
The Bells have been penalized ever since the Telecom Act was passed, and most consumers were led to believe this was good since the Bells were big old evil monopolies. Which played well, since Americans love an easy story that’s been stripped of all complexity.
The truth is that the regulation of the Bells hurt consumers badly, especially in areas that were uninteresting to new competitors (who most set up shop in lucrative urban biz hubs and ignored everything else). Rural areas, for instance – new companies weren’t interested and the Bells were precluded thanks to twisted interpretations of data transfer rules by the FCC.
New competitors have by and large failed to build out new networks, instead piggybacking Bell nets, and in what way consumers benefit from this odd wholesale poaching arrangements is beyond me. This move will make real competition in DSL/cable markets more of a reality, I think, and in principle I’m just tickled to see a ruling that lets the Bells compete without having their hands tied.
I hope you’re right. But in rural areas, I’m going to have to see it to be fully convinced —
I hope you’re right. But in rural areas, I’m going to have to see it to be fully convinced —
I worked at a Bell. We actually could have brought data service to a lot of rural areas, but FCC interpretation of rules governing transport across LATA boundaries (in-state “long-distance” areas) made it almost impossible in a lot of areas. And we were the only ones who wanted to do it.
I worked at a Bell. We actually could have brought data service to a lot of rural areas, but FCC interpretation of rules governing transport across LATA boundaries (in-state “long-distance” areas) made it almost impossible in a lot of areas. And we were the only ones who wanted to do it.