Comments on news posted 2012-08-30 10:37:02: The New Republic notes that one of the cornerstones of the GOP's technology agenda being firmed up at the convention this week (aside from censoring porn, opposing net neutrality and further eliminating consumer protections) is "spectrum reform. ..
If you really believe this stuff then you sir are a comedian of great renown.
What's being complained about here is speculation on what might happen should everybody be given a fair shot at bidding for spectrum.
Yes, AT&T and Verizon's easily documented corruption of the entire political process is a total hallucination, and the use of duopoly power jack up the price of auction entry is all made up by vile, vile bogeymen. Again, comedy gold, sir.
The ugly head of hyperpartisanship has reached BBR.
Tip: pointing out that both parties are full of crap on technology policy (shocking) is not "hyperpartisanship." It's the exact opposite, and it should be something that's commonplace in all forms of media.
Tip: Putting your article title as "GOP Tech Platform: Give More Spectrum to AT&T and Verizon" is not pointing out both parties. It's misleading to say the least, as the GOP is featured prominently when the democrats are just as bad, or worse.
Perhaps read the last two paragraphs of the article before whining. Looks pretty clear to me that both parties are being portrayed here (correctly, IMO) as hopeless.
And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Rural markets are natural monopolies, and should be regulated accordingly; while that will generally mean substantially higher prices for broadband, it will assure its availability.
Fair enough. Can you explain the monopolies in almost every metro area throughout America?
I live in one of the wealthiest counties in the country and close to a major city yet only have Comcast, not even VZ DSL.
What's even more laughable is someone on the west coast defending telecoms in America, considering how limited choices are there - in AT&T country. The limited choices in the San Jose area for example are a complete joke.
There's nothing in the document but a bunch of fluff and bullshit, like all political documents from both parties. I'll rely on actual history to tell me who I should believe, thanks -- and it shouldn't be politicians with a generation of lies under their belt.
That's fine. But also don't believe bloggers & commentators with their own history of distorting reality to further their own agendas - like a lot of these so-called consumer protection groups that are just shills for more gov't control of everything..
But you're pretty clearly ok with politicians doing this, based on your incredible enthusiastic support for the GOP candidate. The same candidate who won't disclose the specifics behind his campaign because he knows people won't like it. Your post above takes a GOP document and acts as if its a gospel beyond critical thinking entirely.
It's fascinating that everybody in this country screams and cries about distortion, or bias when something doesn't fit their (usually very narrow) world view, but is utterly incapable of seeing that their own lense out onto the world creates distortion of its own.
Stop buying into partisan nonsense. It might help keep you from over simplifying consumer advocate positions as "more gov't control of everything." Most of them are trying to represent the public -- a novel notion indeed.
And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Then how do the laws that were passed preventing rural communities from establishing their own broadband networks come into play with all this. One of the big elephants in the room is that the big telcos have lobbied extremely hard in many states to prevent local, rural communities from starting their own ISPs, by local votes, by their own community members. These are often areas that want the service but the telcos are unwilling to serve them due to population density -- or it just plain doesn't fit their market plan.
AT&T and VERIZON should be broken up, rather than get ONE MORE GOODIE from the federal government, or state & local governments for that matter..
in 2007 & 2008, as millions of jobs were hemorraging.. somebody gave the then candidate John McCain the bright idea to say "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"...
When you represent the 1%, it's hard to argue with things being so bad... until there is a French style revolution and the people want heads to roll (literally)... on THAT day, it won't be such a great day to be in support of these policies..
And the Left fails to grasp or accept that rural consumers are unwilling to pay rates sufficient to attract competing vendors.
GOP respects consumer's rights to NOT purchase services they don't want, unlike the current regime, which will fine tax you if you don't buy their "affordable care" policy.
Then how do the laws that were passed preventing rural communities from establishing their own broadband networks come into play with all this. One of the big elephants in the room is that the big telcos have lobbied extremely hard in many states to prevent local, rural communities from starting their own ISPs, by local votes, by their own community members. These are often areas that want the service but the telcos are unwilling to serve them due to population density -- or it just plain doesn't fit their market plan.
Your assertion is simply untrue.
Rural communities are not prevented from establishing their own broadband networks. Only the local government.
There are several avenues to form your own broadband service without using the government, and hundreds of communities have done just that, whether or not it is fiscally advisable.
It isn't that telco is unwilling to serve; customers are unwilling to pay the rates necessary to support the service. That's not a condemnation, its simple math. Low-density rural broadband has much higher costs per household, wired or wireless, while rural people are more likely to not subscribe.
We can and should continue to dialogue on the 21st-century meaning of "universal service", which may mean more than just dialtone... but does it mean the rest of us have to subsidize every rural household $10K to plumb fiber, and ongoing subsidies to buy down the monthly rate to $30/month from the real-world cost of $100+?
When ever I see "Filter porn", "fight porn", I flash back to the Christian Coalition. They would have us back in the days of where woman had no rights, you could be burned at the stake for not attending church, etc. I for one don't need to live in a country that would restrict my freedoms in such a manner.
IMO, "filter porn" is a parents job, not the governments. If the parent fails to do their job, that is on them, and no one else. Parents need to parent and not give it other to the schools or the government to do the parenting.
If that is true then why is it the current Democrat administration has let Comacast gobble up NBC? Why have they allowed Verizon and Comacast to partner? Why have they basically been the administration that never saw a monopoly they didn't like?
Basically, the copyright industry isn't big enough to force wholesale changes down the throats of the American people (alone), so getting in bed w/ the ISPs so that their values align and their wallet is big enough to bribe EITHER party to make these changes.. least, we forget.. a substantial # of these committees are shared responsiblity (rarely, if ever do you have ONE GUY saying "Oh hell no, this far and no further..."). They already know that this 6x (strikes) plan is going to be a big mess and will in the end cost the ISPs some customers.. and jusitfy usage based billing and rate hikes as an end game (aka final solution) to the copyright industry's problem. In Canada, they tax storage hardware & media..
However, these changes aren't a Republican or Democrat issue, it's more a corruption issue than anything.. if you ask the common man about the AT&T/Tmobile merger, they were against, it.. usage based billing (data)... against, Comcast caps... against.. Comcast/Nbc.. skeptical, AT&T/Bellsouth merger... for, but there were alot of broken promises, so that ended up changing as time clicked by and they did not fulfill the merger principles for owning Bell South/Cingular. Who does this all benefit? Three beneficiaries come to mind: Lawyers, Wall Street, and the 1%... Who does it hurt? Joe, the average rate payer..
Actually, the legislation was proposed by the large Telcos in various states, to completely prevent any county or city from installing their own FTTH. That decision should be left up to the voters of a community, not Republican legislators and their corporate cronies.
Of course, there is nothing stopping private investors from using their own money, or raising money, to fund such a venture.
Which part of they do not want to service these areas do you fail to grasp? Moreover, am I surprised with you stance? No. Republicans hate government yet have no problem whatsoever using it to push a corporate agenda.
Likewise. What rock have you lived under, as you clearly missed the Telcos lobbying, state after state, (R) legislator to prevent any county from installing their own FTTH network.
Once again, if a telco is unwilling to service a county or adequately, why should they (i.e. Americans) be prevented from installing and operating their own network???
Nobody is asking some twit from Santa Monica to fund anything. Rather, communities want the right deliver a service, when your beloved private sector has failed; as it does so frequently.
Which part of they do not want to service these areas do you fail to grasp?
Ok I am typing this really slow so that you understand. My suggestion was for *private* entities and persons to raise their own money to build their network. You do realize this doesn't have to mean a cable or telephone company, right?
Likewise. What rock have you lived under, as you clearly missed the Telcos lobbying, state after state, (R) legislator to prevent any county from installing their own FTTH network.
Yes... any government from doing it. Any private interest can still do it. There is no law that prevents any private individual, organization or entity from setting up and operating a private broadband or cable provider.
That is, unless of course your beloved government decides to stop it.
