dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-02-05 19:13:30: • Should We Tax Content Providers to Fund Broadband Build-Out? [huffingtonpost.com] • Farmers Need Broadband More Than New Trucks [lightreading.com] • US viewers opt for free TV streaming [broadbandtvnews. ..


majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

sandy towers

I am on long island. My local att tower has been down since sandy and still has not been fixed yet. I know have 1 bar signal at home.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Farmers "need" broadband?

How many farms are there that can't get a T-1, IDSL, 3G/LTE, DSL, Wisp or satellite service?


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Farmers "need" broadband?

Satellite is NOT true braodband service, its barely better than dial up. As for t-1 those are freaking expensive, up to $1000 a month in some places, most farmers cant afford that. idsl isnt everywhere nor is 3g/4g, dsl nor are wisps(though dsl and wisp are broadband, as is t-1.) There are a lot who can't get anything but sat or dial-up, both of which hardly count as internet these days.

All in all WISP are the best way to go.



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Should We Tax Content Providers to Fund Broadband Build-Out?

Nope. That is what the gazillions set on fire with the USF is for.



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to me1212

Re: Farmers "need" broadband?

SRS is WAY better than dialup. It isn't FiOS but duh but is good enough for light-moderate use. Any farming business so big as to not be able to use SRS is big enough to afford a T-1.

Instead of setting money on fire with ethanol subsidies how about some loan guarantees for a few WISPs?


chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

can you be more specific about SRS what it is, I heard and saw about it less than T1 or Frame Relay. Are you referring to wireless transmission? LTE?



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Click for full size
Still have a screenie...AOLPlus powered by DirecPC
SRS=Satellite return satellite (as opposed to dial return). I had dial return at a vacation house 10 years ago and it was great. Off SATMEX5 I saw 3Mb no problems and with it being through AOHELL there was no FAP. The only thing I couldn't do with it was play FPS but it worked great for everything else.

When I had trouble even getting 28.8, satellite was duh tsar bomba.


linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink

Who should be taxed: carriers or content providers?

If you tax the local internet carrier, the cost will passed to the customer who is already overburdened with taxes.

If you tax the company that surreptitiously collects personal information and then sells it for a profit, you found the correct source. These are the people who help generate spam, junk mail, and ads that follow you across the internet. They can't force individuals to buy their products, join their lists, or subscribe to their newsletters, but they can pass their cost onto the people who buy their lists. You can mark junk mail as "return to sender" and give it back to your local post office.

The folks in the beltway have no clue how many people live in rural America with slow or no internet, and no McDonald's with WiFi for homework. There are schools that don't have the internet, new computers, or even enough older computers. There are rural libraries without internet and computers, too.

It is a grand pipe dream to think of an America with fast coast-to-coast internet that has competition too. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you are in a very large metro area most Americans have, and will only have, access to one phone company and one cable company for internet access; some don't even have that. In rural America, the question is always: which is the lesser evil? Both are overpriced; both usually provide mediocre to lousy service - depending upon the problem. GREAT SERVICE is as rare as hen's teeth.

Farmers are more likely to use GPS for crops than to use the internet to watch movies. The seat in a John Deer is a different world than a cushy seat in the 48 do-little legislatures, and U.S. Congress.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to me1212

Re: Farmers "need" broadband?

said by me1212:

Satellite is NOT true braodband service, its barely better than dial up. As for t-1 those are freaking expensive, up to $1000 a month in some places, most farmers cant afford that. idsl isnt everywhere nor is 3g/4g, dsl nor are wisps(though dsl and wisp are broadband, as is t-1.) There are a lot who can't get anything but sat or dial-up, both of which hardly count as internet these days.

All in all WISP are the best way to go.

I didn't say that any of those listed are "true broadband". That's a different discussion. Nor did I say they were cheap.

What I asked, was simply, how many farmers are there that don't have access to one of these services?

The premise of the campaign is that farmers "need broadband" - I'd like to see that claim qualified, so we can determine again, how many, where, and what the marginal cost is, rather than just have the usual emotional response, resolved by spending someone else's money, only to be shocked and surprised when the goal is not met.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to skeechan

It's not the speed that's the problem, it's the caps. $60 per month for 10GB of data is steep.


Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to linicx

Re: Who should be taxed: carriers or content providers?

said by linicx:

If you tax the company that surreptitiously collects personal information and then sells it for a profit, you found the correct source.

This isn't about taxing spammers, it's about taxing legitimate web services like Google, Netflix, etc.

And even if you still think that taxing content providers is a good idea, where does it end? How can you justify taxing one web site and not the rest? Should Joe Average have to pay a tax because he wants to put up a blog? After all, he's now a content provider.

Oh, only big content providers will be charged? Can you guarantee that? Is the government going to put that in writing? Who decides how big you have to be before you get charged?

While we're at it, why not add a special tax to shipping companies to help maintain the roads? How about a special tax on companies like Amazon and eBay to help fund the post office? Maybe a tax on companies that make electric/electronic devices to help fund the electric companies?

And by the way, what happened to all that money that subscribers like me have been paying into the Universal Service Fund? I thought that was supposed to pay for telecommunications maintenance and expansion?

This is a clear case of double-dipping. I pay for internet access, companies like Google pay for internet access, I don't see why they should be the ones to pay for the ISP's infrastructure.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

This bafoon linicx just wrote a bunch of spam content that he provided for us. He needs to be taxed


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to me1212

Re: Farmers "need" broadband?

I am sick and tired of infinitesimally small groups crying that they don't have this or that -- least of all FARMERS. I grew up on a farm and I know it used to be hard work. The Paul Harvey Dodge commercial during the Superbowl bought back memories but today, farmers are just welfare recipients.

»farm.ewg.org/regiondetail.php

In our state alone, $557M was paid to 61K recipients in 2011. A simple average is $9,150 per farm. My federal income taxes cover the subsidies for about two farms in my own state. In total, $15.2B was paid in 2011 to 1.2M recipients for an average of $12,563/farm. Between 1995 and 2011, $277,292,054,909 has been paid. That doesn't even count the PIK years that started in 1984 by Reagan.

The trouble with these subsidies is there are fewer and fewer small family farms which is the intent of these subsidies. A lot of small farmers disappeared and now they are really big or even owned by other corporations and simply run by folks who don't own the land. (Say this like Gomer Pyle) Surprise, surprise, surprise, more corporate welfare!

If we keep crying about farmers needing Internet, wanna know what's next? That's right, more corporate welfare as the government subsidizes the telco and cable companies to lay miles and miles of fiber for one customer just so they can turn around and charge us if we use too much data on a practically unlimited supply infrastructure.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to linicx

Re: Who should be taxed: carriers or content providers?

If we tax content providers, they'll start charging for their services. When they charge, folks will stop using them. Bye Bye tax base. Ooops. Now we're addicted to those taxes to pay for more pork barrel programs coming from the clowns in DC. What are we going to do now? If we get rid of the program, it'll throw us into a recession because the government already anticipated the potential income for 10 years of this new tax, borrowed that amount yesterday and spent it today. Ooops! Better print more money.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to silbaco

Re: Farmers "need" broadband?

Then that Farmer can buy 25GB for $130/mo or way more data for way less money in certain areas, basically west of the Miss. R.

»www.wildblue.com/options/recovery-act


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Thats still way overpriced for that little data.



linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink
reply to elray

How many need or use broadband, I think, depends upon what area of the US they farm in, and how far they live from an ISP. Some crop farmers subscribe to a GPS system; I'm not sure how the information is delivered to them. I know farmers who have microwave links, dialup internet, and some with no internet. I have not met any with hi-speed yet. But. The odds are they won't know anything about the internet except they have it and the wife or kids use it. We talk about crops, weather, and local farm news. I don't know any farmer who would even need or want even a half-T1, let alone one who could actually buy it. Where I live the fastest ISP business class is a cable delivered 15/4 @$200/mo. 10/2 is about $130/tax.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to me1212

And living in Orange County or New York City is "overpriced". You can have a dirt cheap house with dirt cheap taxes and expensive Interwebz or a zillion dollar house, sky high taxes and cheap Interwebz. Welcome to the world of opportunity cost.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to me1212

What farm application actually "needs" so much data, that wouldn't justify paying for it?


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to skeechan

Dirt cheap taxes? You live in a bubble if you think that is the case. There is nothing cheap about paying taxes on all the land you own, which is usually quite a lot. A lot of farmers are taking out loans after last drought year.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to elray

It's not specifically for farming. Yes, there is the need for broadband for modern day farming. But farmers enjoy streaming videos too.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

said by silbaco:

It's not specifically for farming. Yes, there is the need for broadband for modern day farming. But farmers enjoy streaming videos too.

Sorry, but they article's theme is that farmers "need" broadband, not that they want to enjoy streaming videos.

So far, no one has put forth one bit of evidence of "need" of broadband for farmers, nor has anyone accounted for the actual population of farmers who don't have better-than-dialup access.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS
reply to silbaco

Yes, dirt cheap taxes. You want to talk about business taxes in farm states vs California or New York? LOL. Try paying California property tax on a building in Irvine or even farmland in Irvine. Large properties here lease for several dollars a foot and have assessed values in the tens upon tens of millions. Mid-west governments are pikers when it comes to raping taxpayers. The property tax on my SRF is nearly $10K and I'm on a 1/2 acre and this is in addition to 8% sales tax, 10.5% state income tax, .36/gal gas tax...tax tax tax tax.

If you aren't utilizing your property, then you aren't a farmer, you are a landowner.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to silbaco

I agree that $60/10GB isn't great, but it is a marked improvement over prior rates, and what farm would actually "need" more?

If that's not enough, why not subscribe Millenicom at $70/50GB?

I'm still asking for anyone, please, to quantify the alleged population and define the actual need, after which we might be able to determine an actual solution set, instead of just throwing away another billion dollars towards a slogan.