On 6/10/2011 9:12 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> Didn't this start with something about how much it costs to run
>> Facebook? No doubt it is a lot of money. However the incremental cost of
>> providing Facebook to any one user is immeasurably small. You could even
>> say that denying Facebook to any one person would cost more than
>> allowing it.
>>
>> GPS is a similar example with the critical difference that I don't see
>> how a user is being sold.
>
> The difference is, the US military *needs* GPS to exist, and they're the
> ones paying for it. Once it exists, it costs no extra money to let you
> and me use it, so why bother trying to charge for it?
>

The genesis of GPS is a fascinating study in technology, bureaucracy and 
the military.  Read "The Strategy of Technology" (1970), Stefan T. 
Possony, Jerry E Pournelle and Col. Francis X Kane.  It is available 
online at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html. 
Particularly "An Illustrative Case History: GPS NAVSTAR: The Revolution 
25 Years in the Making" at the end of Chapter 2.

Col. Kane headed up the study and then the programme that developed GPS.

The study identified that such a system would be technologically 
possible and would have many benefits to various military operations - 
something like 30,000 distinct uses were considered.  One problem was 
that for just about every possible use somebody would say "Well sure but 
we can get by the way we are" / "We have a cheaper alternative" / "It 
won't be ready because the (Vietnam) war will be over in 6 months" etc. 
  Others actively opposed the scheme because it would replace the system 
that they were running or proposing.

US Congress approved funding on the basis that it would cost less than 
the programmes it replaced (it didn't) and that the non-Defence users 
would pay (they don't).

Looking back it seems like a no-brainer decision to put up GPS but that 
isn't how such things come about.

I strongly doubt that the non-military usage of the system came at no 
cost either originally or since.  Suppose for example that the US 
military no longer required GPS.  The body that oversees the programme 
is mandated to provide civilian use positioning signals.

Do you think the system would be shutdown and the satellites de-orbited? 
  Do you think there would be any way to start charging for all of the 
continuing users?

> Nobody *needs* Facebook to exist, and nobody *pays* for it to exist.
> [Some people pay to put adverts on it, but they don't actually care
> about FB itself. They just want lots of people to see ads.] Every single
> extra person who accesses FB increases the costs for the operators
> (unlike GPS). So yes, you're being sold.
>

By the same logic, advertising funded television stations, radio 
stations, newspapers, sporting events, billboards and more don't *need* 
to exist.  They are just vehicles to carry advertising to consumers. 
The actual content is secondary.  I don't see much difference between 
those and Facebook.  Sure some people actually enjoy the content and 
even *want* it but for anybody else you just see them as irrelevant and 
wonder why somebody would pay to produce them.  Unless you see that they 
are just money making vehicles.

> Now figure this out: It costs money to access the Debian website. Who
> the **** is paying for that?

No idea.  Somebody or some organisation that benefits from Debian and 
wants it to be active and healthy?

Post a reply to this message