digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

If AT&T Ran the Highway System...

informationweek.com — Drivers would have to prepay their tolls, based on the estimated number of miles they expected to drive. Those who drove fewer miles than estimated would get no refund; those who drove more would be charged for the overage at a higher rate. The AT&T-approved Apple iCar would be limited to a top speed of 30 mph. Sales people in AT&T car showrooms w

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • diggdong, on 10/10/2007, -5/+50On the surface this seems like an apples and oranges argument. But, pay roads with private ownership is becoming an increasing issue for freedom to travel in the US.
    • theNazz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+45Especially roads that were built with tax dollars now being sold to private interests to turn into toll roads that are funding foreign interests...
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6maybe it qill stop people from pollutting so much. Tax dollards need to be turned from funding highway projects to funding mass transit systems. Socialized roads has lead to urban sprawl, pollution and other environmental degradations. I am not saying privatize the roads but they do need to be cost neutral. The government should toll the roads so that only the people who use them pay for them which would also eliminate those ridiculous pork barrel projects and unlike other "taxes", this tax burden help the poor who tend to use buses and other mass transit. Poor people would pay less taxes and middle class and rich people would be more conscious of their driving habits.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"Tax dollards need to be turned from funding highway projects to funding mass transit systems. Socialized roads has lead to urban sprawl, pollution and other environmental degradations."

        Urban sprawl is taboo?? So we should all be packed like sardines into a few megacities taking the bus/train to work? Both models have their flaws....in your utopia if the transit union wants to take the city hostage because they want a raise, you're stuck without a decent transport to work until a new deal is worked out.

        "Poor people would pay less taxes and middle class and rich people would be more conscious of their driving habits." It'll get more complicated than you think. Trucking companies then have to pay more in tolls, and this cost gets passed down to consumers like grocery shoppers. Now you have a case where the poor pay little to get to the store but pay more to buy food.
        • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3but trucking companies would have to pay less in taxes. At most, a fraction of a penny increase in transportation costs as transportation costs would not actually increase because the cost of building and maintaining stay exactly the same.

          Urban Sprawl is bad. It's one of the big reasons the U.S. is such a big polluter.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Not everybody wants to live in a city. Cope with that fact.

            Oh, and blocked for idiocy.
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3@Otto
            hahahaha don't know what urban sprawl is do you? Hint think of what "urban sprawl" literally means.
          • thall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@jmpeagle, you said taxes would just be moved from highway projects to metro transit, how does that move translate to less taxes for anyone?

            And after staring at your next sentence for a whole minute I'm not getting the grammar, so i'll take a stab at guessing what you're trying to say. If the road costs remain, and there are less people driving on them (because they'd be taking public transit), and taxes aren't paying those costs, then the few still taking highways have to pay the difference.

            You realize trucks pay much much more on toll roads than cars because of the extra wear & tear they put on right? Take that truck-to-car price ratio and scale it up to cover the costs that taxes would no longer cover....it'll be a lot.
        • wallish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's why we should have robots drive the buses and trains.
        • robojerk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Blue Screen of Death would take on a whole new meaning then..
        • thall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@wallish, that's definitely an ideal to strive for. I've been on some automated airport trams and think they've done a decent job with it. I only fear that something like that scaled to city level quickly exposes bugs, even fatal ones. Like with any automation, great care must be taken to keep it safe. Human subjectivity can be both bad and good.
      • tsbardella, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Mr. Peagle you ROCK! Kick some socailism A$$ heeeeeeeeeel yah. I never heard such greatness about our road system. I want to pay to drive my 350 board out Moon Rocket
    • lunarworks, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7Hey, paying $5 to drive down the street to buy milk is a Libertarian's wet dream.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14subsidizing the rich by taxing the poor is a democrat/republican's wet dream so it all kind of works out.
        • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Since the rich pay most of the tax money in this country, and the poor pay the least and have access to the most benefits from the public teat (not counting the pork money going to the businesses), how exactly does your statement make any sense?

          I just moved up a couple tax brackets this year, and I can assure you that MOST of the rich have no choice but to pay outrageous taxes. You only hear about the lucky few who are able to do creative stuff like getting paid in stock, or having cattle ranches, etc. Most of the upper middle class and rich just write a fat check to the IRS like I am going to do this year, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it... except educate people about the ***** up tax system, and the alternative proposals, like The Fair Tax, or hell, even a flat tax.
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2the rich do not pay the majority of the taxes in this country. They pay the majority if the INCOME taxes but income taxes only account for about 40% of government revenue.

            A person making 5 million a year and a person making 100,000 both pay the EXACT same DOLLAR amount in FICA taxes and yet the rich get much more than their fair share of social security money as for example the average black male in the city doesn't even live long enough to recieve one dollar in social security money.
      • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Most of us are already paying well over $5 to drive down public roads -- they tax you in other ways besides tolls, and they generally suck at maintaining the roads and at keeping them efficient and safe. Why? Because there's no incentive. Profit provides an incentive, as you can see in many other areas of free market economies.

        A Democrat/Republican's wet dream is to tax you in indirect ways so that you can pretend you're not already paying for all the waste in government -- and that dream is a reality.
        • lunarworks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Profit provides an incentive."

          Which is why, unless you live on a major commerce-enabling street, the private sector is going to have even less incentive to fix potholes than your local government. Unless the competition builds another road to your house, of course... oh, wait. Where? It'll be like the cable company lock-in, where you're stuck with one company that has no fear of losing you because there IS no competition. (Let's not bring satellite dishes into this argument, because there's no "dish"-like alternative to roads.)
    • sphengolly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0It is amazing how TERRIBLE our roads are. Traffic congestion is just expected. It is as if there is nothing anyone could possibly do to make driving less of a pain. Rush hour is just a given, there is no way it could be reduced.

      This is such nonsense. If all roads were private, they would be in far better shape and the construction projects would take less than 10 years and there would be tons less traffic congestion. Competition always improves products. If roads were a product, they would improve. And many roads would be paid for by businesses who want to give you easy access to their store. So it wouldn't mean a toll booth every mile.
      • gnilrets, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Plus, they'd probably be made out of something that didn't need to be re-paved every other year.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Competition always improves products. If roads were a product, they would improve."
        Except, there isn't much in terms of COMPETITION, especially if it's just one or two companies that establish the toll rate. Hmm...I could take 10 minutes on the highway and pay $10 toll, or I could take 70 minutes on local roads for free. Where's the competition? you can't really say it's the price of convenience because, if somehow a competitive highway was set up right along side the first highway, you can bet we'd see some price wars.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0 Part of the problem with rush hour traffic is that in every city in the country there are so many blacks and hispanic people that all of the white workers are moving farther and farther from where they work so they can be in better neighborhoods and then commuting in. White flight has also driven the housing boom this last decade.
    • zappo1776, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Some things are much cheaper for most people when paid for by taxes. We used to have city sanitation take our garbage at a cost of ~$200.00/yr now we have to pay a private company ~$1000.00/yr for worse service. It's much more difficult to deal with a private company which has a monopoly than with most local governments in U.S. Healthcare would be cheaper also. Private roads would be a nightmare.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Here's the key behind deciding when to privatize: how can society regulate it the best? At the macro level, anything society *needs* (not just wants) in order to function can't be controlled by an unfair monopoly, yet also shouldn't have to put up with the poor quality of service/product that can come from unregulated competition.

        A corporate monopoly can work, but it has to be fair. Sadly history shows us private monopoly's need to be strongly regulated to keep fair. But this doesn't necessarily mean government monopolies are any better, they can be worse: just as unfair (excessive overhead, padding pockets) and with the power of the [tax] law to keep their back it's even harder for society to fix it. At least with private highway tolling someone *can* choose to take the local roads, whereas if it's all paid for by taxes then you're stuck paying for admin fees even if you choose to walk.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly. Privatization is usually better.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In Sydney we have several private motorways and rail lines. Let me assure you that infrastructure privatisation is simply a way of governments shielding deficits. Building motorways and rail lines costs big money, because a lot of the time you need to buy back land or tunnel under existing development. In any democracy, a deficit is an election nightmare, and it takes a visionary with guts to pull off large infrastructure projects without being trounced at the next election. If you need to dig a half billion dollar tunnel, chances are that you are going to need to involve private companies. Of course the private companies aren't in it for the good will. They want a profit, which means in the long run we pay a lot more for the infrastructure. They also like to throw things in, like road closures, or converting lanes to 'bus lanes' on the alternative routes.

        Take Sydney Cross City Tunnel for example.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_city_tunnel

        It was conceived as a way to link east and western Sydney removing the through traffic clogging the CBD streets. It was also a nice shortcut from western sydney to the eastern distributor for those heading to the airport. What did we end up with? An overpriced toll on the road, and artificial funneling of cars into the tunnel by closing lanes on the competing free routes. Because of the high price, motorists avoided it, and the traffic that used to be two lanes was stuck in a single lane.

        Or take the Lane Cove tunnel converting Epping Rd (the previous main route) to one lane each way + one lane buses only each way in parts. Or take the M2 years earlier, where entrances and exits were not built if they would not flow traffic through some of the toll gates. At least the M7 has cashless per km tolling, so they actually built entrances and exits at useful places..

        The problem with privatisation is that we get screwed out of the service unless we are profitable.
    • prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2America's abysmal road infrastructure is quite possibly the best example of a societal need that is inadequately resolved by *either* private or public means. Expansion of private tolls roads is just a recipe for a "monopoly waiting to happen." The private owners would either gouge the drivers, or withhold needed maintenance and complain to regulators that they "can't afford" to make infrastructure investment. Much like how the post office is essentially a "blessed monopoly" that is supposed to be regulated by congress to maintain efficiency, yet always seems to be running out of money and constantly needs rate increases to deliver services.

      Public ownership, on the other hand, has been almost an equal disaster since elected officials constantly prove to us that they are utterly incapable of planning for needs that will impact society *after* they are no longer in office or running for re-election. The incredibly obvious solution to a lack of freeway lanes, for example, is to have "planned seizure" of property next to the existing freeway. (Libertarians, please don't have a meltdown until you've read the rest of the thought...) Simply designate that if the average experienced mph on a freeway dips below x% of the posted maximum, the homes/offices within 100 feet become "planned conversions" and any resident may ONLY sell it to the government (still at full market rate!) and may not sell it to anyone else. They are NOT evicted. They can live there until they die at 105 years old if they want to. It just that society designates that the *ultimate* fate of the property is to be more lanes. The owner is NOT robbed of either their home or the value of their home. They are not required to do anything at all. They CAN sell out and move, but don't HAVE to. When they die, their non-resident heir simply gets the monetary value of the property, not the property itself. Why don't we do this? Because politicians won't bother to put in place laws that solve problems in 20 or 50 years from now.
      • thall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1My beef with real estate ownership is this: the first owners to lay claim to the property didn't pay anyone for it: Inheritance by being in the right place at the right time, and considering the price these days that was a HUGE inheritance to someone who did no work other than to ride out and put a stake in the ground.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it's my property, I can give it to whomever I want. I get to decide what I do with it, not the government.
    • Mirag3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2America's road network is (literally by orders of magnitude) more extensive and longer than any other travel network in the world. It can and is referred to as a marvel of engineering. Our series of Interstates operate throughout one of the largest contiguous land nations in the world with little to no complete downtime. The federal manegement of America's national road system can be called no less than brilliant - and it is arguably President Dwight D. Eisenhower's greatest accomplishment. America transfers vital goods by motor vehicle from California to New York to Miami to Houston every minute, providing vital infrastructure to the entire country at an efficiency that is so great that we achieve comparison with the transportation networks of comparitively tiny nations, such as those of Europe. There may be a few hiccups in the system, but the scale of these in compared to the unbelievable 46,837 miles of highway make it a truely overlooked demonstration of federal and public management efficiency when done right.
  • kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -16/+4But we would then have touchscreen toll booths that can do l a n d s c a p e.
  • SirGunslinger, on 10/10/2007, -14/+72Yeah, and if Grandma had a dick she would be Grandpa...
    • BenCoJones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's sad that consumers accept the dismal terms of service offered by major American cell phone companies, and while this analogy is highly flawed, we've got to at least realize that we could be having it a lot better, and start demanding it.
    • XMinusX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WTF Thats Awsome
  • CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -6/+43and this is different from Cingular, Sprint, etc. how? If you're going to call one out, call them all out otherwise I might suspect you have some sort of agenda...
    • cmdrNacho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8no different from any other carrier.
      • Yez70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Except AT&T has been doing it for over a century.
    • shagwAg3n, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16well, for the record, cingular is the new at&t :D
      • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Which is, for the record, really the same as the old AT&T, just don't look too closely....
        • rderveloy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Actually It's just SBC renamed to AT&T. Cingular and AT&T wireless merged, and SBC went and purchased everything and renamed themselves AT&T. So, AT&T is no longer AT&T, it's SBC wearing the AT&T hat.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBC_Communications:
          "The current AT&T, which is based in San Antonio, Texas, United States, is the rechristened SBC Communications, following the purchase of "Ma Bell", AT&T Corporation. As a part of the purchase, SBC shed its name and took on the iconic AT&T moniker and the T stock-trading symbol (for "telephone"). The corporation is considered SBC renamed."

          In the tech world, it would be the equivalent of Yahoo buying Google and renaming themselves Google. Yes, I know that would never happen, but I'm making a point.

          As for Cingular, it was a joint venture between Bellsouth and SBC. Cingular purchased AT&T wireless and merged. After that happened, SBC went and purchased Bellsouth and AT&T. When that happened, Cingular became a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC, now the new AT&T, and was renamed to AT&T. Cingular is still the same company, just renamed to AT&T.

          So, any animosity you may harbor against the old AT&T is somewhat misplaced when you start blaming the new company. That is, of course, unless your animosity is against SBC or Cingular.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cingular
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
    • RonPaulsiPhone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Except for AT&T controlling a ton of the internet backbone and helping the NSA spy on US citizens and being the number 1 opponent of net neutrality. Basically yeah, I'll take a phone company screwing me over my phone service instead of spying on me and trying to ruin the Internet any day of the week.
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This is why I love mobile phone operators in Britain. Consumer pressure has long since destroyed any illusions of grandeur they may have.
      • fjf314, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately, it seems like most people in the US think that as long as they can stream clips of whatever the latest garbage on TV was to their phone for some ridiculous extra charge, life couldn't get any better.
    • virtualball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Seriously, I read this and thought, "Wow, this is exactly like Alltel and Verizon!" I think people give AT&T a bad name even though every other carrier (except Revvol (Ohio carrier)) does this!
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I've been gunning for AT&T ever since they collaborated with the NSA for the illegal spying operation.
    • Lenny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3cause AT&T has the iPhone, durr. Were have you been for the past month.
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8they are all the same, and they are all *****. i dont understand why cell phones and the companies who provide the service in america are so far behind other countries. the cell phones in japan are literally light years ahead of us, they had iphone type cells years ago, we are falling behind in everything because we allow corporations so much ***** control. obviously they are just going to keep screwing us over because 1) the average consumer is ignorant to the fact that many other countries have much better cell phones and cell service and 2) even if we knew we wouldnt do anything to change it, like so many times before the average american will just bend over and let the corporations give it to them in the ass.
      • rderveloy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"I don’t[sic] understand why [the] cell phones and the companies who provide the service in [America] are so far behind other countries."

        First off, we're not that far behind. 3G wasn’t seriously rolled out in Japan until just 2 years ago. Not only that, but Asian or European companies make most of the phones we buy. Just to name a few, LG, Sony Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung are all foreign companies that reside in either in Asia or Europe. In the case of Sony Ericsson, it’s both.

        Additionally, you also have to consider that these companies have every right to distribute their latest and greatest products to their home countries before they offer them in the US. Usually, this probably has to do with a combination of trade laws, federal regulations, lack of supply, frequency spectrum (varies from country to country), and patriotism.

        If Microsoft had a limited supply of their brand new game console, and they decided it was better to launch overseas first than over here, people would be upset.

        Second, as for the network technology itself, it's very easy to understand once you think about it for a little bit. Japan, Korea, and Europe are smaller areas in terms of land mass. Additionally, they tend to be much more densely populated per square mile. Therefore, any company over there looking to provide service...
        a) doesn't have to spend as much time and money to provide coverage simply because there is less land to cover, and...
        b) has a more dense population meaning more potential customers per square mile.

        Additionally, you have to consider that wireless is only wireless between your phone and the tower. Everything else is still wired and copper or fiber connections still need to be made between the tower and the rest of the network. It's obviously going to take a lot more cable, towers, and equipment to cover an area the size of the United States when compared to Japan, Korea, or Europe.

        So, these areas not only have smaller networks to work with, but they also have a dense population of customers. It's not that hard to imagine that, with these considerations, companies in Japan or Europe can roll out changes and upgrades faster and easier than they can here.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gsm
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3g
  • dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Ted Stevens would be the toll booth operator. He's comin' out of the BOOOTH-uh! (To dump some things on your big truck, of course.)
    • shagwAg3n, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5props for toll booth willie reference :)
    • ygrof, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And he would explain that the highway system is really just a system of tubes, and the mailman was late because the tubes were clogged with junk cars.
    • mapkinase, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He would explain that there are horses inside each car.
  • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4Except the iCar can travel faster than anyone else by switching to the WiFi lane, and when travelling even on the slower roads can go a lot more places - kind of the point of a car you know.

    Not to mention that you keep passing by the other "Mobile" cars broken down on the side of the road.
    • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Except for those damn people with those N95 roadsters. Who the hell do they think they are, anyways, able to switch between AT&T roads, Tmobile roads, and wifi roads at will? They must be filthy dirty commies!
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Yeah except they keep veering wildly all over the roads, while the iPhones drives smoothly forward...

        Having just left T-Mobile, the ability to "drive the T-Mobile road" holds very little appeal for me.
        • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've had more luck with my personal phone which has tmobile service than the work phone I have with cingular. Of course, to continue the car/tollway analogy, the N95 lets you also pay lower european fares by being able to replace the toll collector with a localized device.

          Of course, that'll change in a few days when the subsidy lock is finally reversed, but for now, you're stuck.
  • godd4242, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20To everyone above me


    WHOOOSHHH

    This all flew right over your head.
    • mapkinase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1... right into your head permanently damaging your brain.
  • slackerxpc, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Lame.
  • billymonster, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7and if the cable company paved roads they would go out if it rained, and for help you would have to sit on the phone for an hour.

    apples and oranges.
    • clickwir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3More like Golden Delicious vs Fiji. They are different, but have lots of things similar.
    • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3...and you could drive on a road sometime between 8am and 5pm for an hour, but they won't tell you when and if you show up late you can't drive.
    • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0and if the satellite company controlled the roads, you would have to buy a special box to attach to your engine in order to drive on the roads. Although the quality of the roads is slighly better than those of the cable company, there is a higher chance of rain cutting off the roads than cable. If you have more than one car, you are charged more, and although there are more roads available than the cable roads, local streets are more limited (and many years ago, there were none at all except in NY and LA) and comes with a higher monthly fee.
  • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+103And if Digg ran the highway system you would keep passing the same exits and landmarks over and over and over again.
    • cliffoliveira, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14...and every other lane would be BREAKING.
    • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2And when you're expecting five intersections ahead, you only find two.
    • Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You'd be forced to travel a lot of roads mirrored, as overwhelming traffic would shut down the normal roads.

      If you drive like an ***** your fellow drivers would bury you in dirt.

      All the billboards would be labelled [PIC]

      Signs would show whatever routes are popular at the moment
    • BufordT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Atleast you could flip someone off, and no one else would see you do it right away. They would have to expand full tree, or view all of their replies.
      • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But if they do catch you, they could report you for spamming :P
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9If the road system were run by AT&T, I'd pay far less in taxes.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And 2x in "surcharges".

      Btw... if we had Landspeeders, we wouldn't need highways.
    • Mirag3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The highway system is financed primarily by a gasoline tax. Stop whining about every little cent you have to pay. Living in an industrialized world means ***** costs money. That's how it works. Roads aren't free (and no, the "free market" isn't a magic system that makes stuff free either). I wish people would stop trying to be that ridiculously greedy. (And yes there is inefficiency in much of the tax system, but the highways are not your poster child, here).
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You'd pay a little less in taxes, and a lot more to whatever private interest took over the responsibility.
  • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Ok, everybody just fyi -- iPhone jokes where you turn the iPhone into a car ARE NOT FUNNY, I know it's news to a few of you... but well... it's just sad some times guys, stop.
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Aww, did we hurt your widdle feelings? "Come on you guys, stop! Seriously, it's not funny anymore, you guys."
  • Stea1th, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7seems to be this douche is just another Verizon customer pissed about how they can't use the iphone,
  • dkla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Pretty funny... good for a chuckle here and there. For all those comments above mine, please take it as such-- just a light-hearted article for a fun summer afternoon... :-)
  • synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3we just have to let AT&T do their thing. it's the magic of capitalism, when has a mega-corporation ever screwed over the little guy?
  • heythisismyname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Horntones..... That's great!
  • luckyn8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9At least with at&t you could roll over your unused miles.
    • twb010, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4FTA: "Those who drove fewer miles than estimated would get no refund; those who drove more would be charged for the overage at a higher rate."

      Way to research your article. Cingular/ATT has had rollover minutes for years now, and while it isn't a refund, you still get a year to use the minutes you purchased.
  • Mafoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Very funny...that is if it weren't true.
  • cactus476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem that I have with the government letting private industry do tasks that the government currently does is that even though they are no longer spending money to do said task, our taxes aren't lowered.
  • Blitzenn, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5hmmm. Seems to me that G. Bush is well on the road to creating this kind of system. Re-read the article with that in mind and it might shock you. Some of those attributes the Fed has successfully applied to everything but cars so far. You cannot travel in any other form of transportation and not abide by all of the things stated in the article. If your expectation is that the freedom you have in your car will be applied in other areas eventually, you are very wrong. The push over the last 40 to 50 years has been to repeal those perceived freedoms. For instance, did you know there there is no longer any state that you can hold a driver's license and subsequently refuse any form of drug test requested by law enforcement? You give up that right of refusal by signing the 'agreement' to accept the license to drive. I hope you think I am wrong and go and investigate yourself. It's getting pretty bad in the US.
    • Chiliap2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1A drug test is a huge difference from this. Way to spread your conspiracy theories over to an unrelated thing.
  • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's not like this article doesn't describe every cell phone provider in existence...
  • HippyJM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Nicely written. It has things that apply to all carriers, especially the end.

    The iPhone is a good idea thats 60% executed. Its a fantastic blow job and then she quits and its blue balls. Was it worth it or no?
  • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't forget they would also be searching the bags in your car while you traveled down the street and reporting contraband to the police. Sick isn't it??
  • lazychris26, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2mirror?
  • ghpoobah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Most of these are pretty old, but the iCar is new.

    If AT&T ran the highway system, things would be different.

    Only AT&T-approved cars would be allowed on the roads, all of which would be toll roads.

    Drivers would have to prepay their tolls, based on the estimated number of miles they expected to drive. Those who drove fewer miles than estimated would get no refund; those who drove more would be charged for the overage at a higher rate.

    The AT&T-approved Apple iCar would be limited to a top speed of 30 mph. Sales people in AT&T car showrooms would have no idea how the iCar operated.

    Buyers of the iCar would be required to use it for a period of two years or to pay a penalty. In addition to the purchase price of the iCar, buyers would have to pay a one-time activation fee to get the engine to start, not to mention the taxes.

    AT&T's roads would feature fluctuating speed limits. In some cases, speed limit reductions would correspond to the traffic on the road; in others, the speed limit would just drop for no apparent reason. Posted speed limits would not correspond with actual ones.

    The engines powering AT&T cars would sometimes just stop, depending on the driver's location. No warning about these "dead spots" would be provided.

    Many of AT&T's roads would be made of dirt, despite tax credits AT&T received to pave its roads.

    AT&T-approved cars would not rely on risky user-operated windows or doors. Entering or exiting the vehicle and raising or lowering the windows would be authorized upon request by a remote AT&T operator.

    For the sake of safety, passengers would not be allowed to load unauthorized food content into the vehicle. Adding and removing authorized cargo to and from the vehicle would be allowed, for a fee.

    AT&T-approved cars would come equipped with an integrated digital jukebox, complete with a coin slot for easy listening. Input and output connectors would be disabled, for passenger protection.

    AT&T would make horn tones available for $3.99. No transfer of music from the car's jukebox to its horn tone storage chip would be allowed.

    AT&T's Terms of Operation would specify the kinds of driving allowed on the AT&T highway system. Ride sharing, trailers, off-road driving, picking up hitchhikers and cruising would all be grounds for license suspension.

    Car customization would be allowed only using AT&T-approved colors and accessories.

    Driving beyond the coverage of AT&T's highway network would incur roaming charges.

    AT&T's road system would report the start point and end point of all trips to the National Security Agency. This information would be used for your protection.

    If none of this sounds particularly appealing, don't worry. This is just one possible future of many. AT&T knows enough to stick to its core competency: innovation in telecommunications.
  • 0megaMagus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1google cache: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ht6fASZ5w8oJ:www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/if_att_ran_the.html+if+at%26t+ran+the+highway&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
  • KnightCrawler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Americans have this idea that anything run by the free market is better. Just look at health care in a America and you realize that it's just not true. Sometimes the government is better suited to run large operations.

    • heavyd14, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2So why is it people come here from all over with terrible diseases to get taken care of? I'll admit America has flaws, but don't act so high and mighty.
  • WorldBuilder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1... It would work
  • WWKayaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yeah, but at least I could use an iPhone at every emergency phonebooth. :D
  • picaman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1This was lame writing when it was "If Microsoft Made Cars" and it was in my inbox in 1992.

    The years haven't improved it.
  • casemon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You forgot the part about where they automatically install a camera inside your car while you are on the road and watch everything you do in your car for every second you use their road; every place you drive, every stop you make, every person you talk to on your car phone.

    You didn't do anything wrong, but they still watch everything you do without you knowing it and give total access to said information to the Government (NSA):

    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619
    • grauelkimchee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so the US gov is now the size of the population of America?

      think about it, one guy has to keep track of one person
      we've just doubled the demographics of the US w/o even knowing it?

      do the math, then quit your bitching
  • jholdaway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If Verizon ran the highway system then you would not be able to get help if it was a humid day, the dot on your car would be pink!
  • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2If you can't afford an iPhone, then it wasn't made for you. Get over it. If all you can think to bitch about is the cost, then boohoo for you. You're just letting everyone know you're bitter about being too poor for an iPhone.
  • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm thinking that the guy who wrote this article never owned a cell phone before he got an iPhone...what he says can be true of any phone, with any carrier.
  • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Most people dont understand the economics involved with being a mobile operator - the upfront investment and ongoing infrastructure just in order to provide service is staggering.

    Its one of those services like a USPS stamp where I cant believe how much people argue over the price for what you get.

    12 years ago, if you told me I could get a free wireless telephone with a camera, music player, and email and make toll-free calls anywhere in the US from virtually anywhere in the US for $40/mo., I would consider that a pretty good deal.
  • josh84p, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I don't understand why ATT gets all the flack for industry wide problems.
  • DextaRussell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So this is how customers complain about their Iphone service ey? AT&T has been good for me, but I don't have a iphone maybe thats why?
  • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If Microsoft ran the US highway system...
    If Exxon ran the US highway system...
    If Time-Warner ran the US highway system...

    Do you get it yet??? CORPORATE MONOPOLIES ARE JUST AS EVIL AS TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS!

    And in the case of the Bush administration, they are one and the same.
  • mfearby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"those who drove more would be charged for the overage at a higher rate"

    Um, OVERAGE? Are you serious? What's wrong with the word "excess"? I think we're all going to have to learn another language because, quite frankly, English doesn't stand a chance! Perhaps French or German, where the ability to speak and write properly are still regarded highly.
    • blacklint, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The point of the article is satire about a telephone company. From at&t's website:

      "Overage Minute Cost — 45 cents per minute" (wow, that's not cheap)
      https://swot.sbc.com/swot/wirelessProductDetail.do?productOfferId=202826&Type=Individual%20Plans

      Also since you seem to think overage isn't a word, the Oxford American Dictionary disagrees:
      overage 1 |ˈōv(ə)rij| noun
      an excess or surplus, esp. the amount by which a sum of money is greater than a previous estimate.

      If you're going to be pretentious, at least be correct.
      • mfearby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Americans seem to think that "normalcy" is a real word, too, but that doesn't make it so in the real English-speaking world; the correct word, by the way, is "normality."
  • FlyboyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The POINT is that the business model of cellphone carriers could use some perspective. Big corporations are sticking it to the consumer because they can. It is not in their interest to run the system like a utility service, even though it is. Fifty years ago the US government would own and operate something as important to the American economy as cellphone infrastructure. That's why the Interstate system was built in the first place.

    There is plenty of room for an innovative company, say Google, to come along and give us what we don't even know we want in terms of mobile voice and data. VoIP combined with the 700MHz spectrum and an ala carte pricing scheme could turn this whole game upside down.
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2'Big corporations are sticking it to the consumer because they can"

      It's far, far worse than that. Corporations are raping consumers in the ass and not only are these consumers forcing smiles on their faces, they're *grateful* that they're doing it. "Gee, thank you soooo much Mr. AT&T for charging me a ***** of money for a device that is limited in a lot of features and trumpets features that have been available elsewhere as "new" again."
  • Kwipper, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I HAVE A HUGE E-PENIS! IT'S BIGGER THAN YOURS! LOOK AT MY E-PENIS! IT'S HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!

    Flamewars suck on digg
  • ihsanalshorafa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I can't believe people are still doing these stupid comparisons. Did no one learn form Bill Gates comparison of the PC to a car. Come on seriously the author needs to figure out the difference between journalism and filler material
  • adub666, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0dumb.
  • Mikey9oo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have an iphone. The Edge network is not that bad. It really isn't. It is not fair to compare it to 30 mph.....maybe 70/100....but that is about it. At least here in NYC.
  • 4rch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This seem like a send off to that old "AOL Car" article.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.