broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| there few things I agree with Democrats on ...
But honestly, net neutrality is one of them, at least in theory. I don't know if legislation regarding it needs to be enacted (the system hasn't been abused yet), but I don't hope a Democratic House will help further the impulse for a national broadband vision, though I hope that vision has room for serious deregulation and franchise reform in addition to the promotion of municipal broadband networks and net neutrality. Alas, for some reason it seems many politicians see all of those premises as conflicting (though they are certainly not). |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | The Dems will want to be reelected. So they will take industry money to fund their campaigns. LOL - don't look for much change in Congress. Lots of noise, but little to no real changes.
Edit:
P.S. The stock market doesn't see much reason to worry about the changes in Congress. It is pretty much a ho-hum response so far. I guess they know the Dems will stay bought too.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
1 edit | so-so
While it's good that the Democrats have won the House and possibly the Senate (rather than the status-quo), they're still politicians. I'm more interested to see how the AT&T change of political funds will affect legislation. I'd be more than disappointed if the Democrats cave in. As always, we'll see.
Passage of net-neutrality legislation is a must, as well as incoming municipal broadband to force competition and lower prices for a service ranked quite essential.
I was very pessimistic about broadband development, competition, and oversight with the current administration, but now I feel with the future maybe Congress will get something good done. Again, we'll wait and see. Money corruption and incompetence isn't something that's exclusive to one side of the fence. But now, at least, I feel some hope. |
|
upidstay
@bellsouth.net
| NOT-Neutrality?
sarcasm: Run for the hills! The Communist left is all
but back in power again, along with tree huggers,
sin lovers, and baby killers. And now they will get a
chance to pass thier socialist one-world-internet
agenda.
Seriously, though even most well educated power users and
IT personell around the industry, even those with differing
political views know the real issue behind net neutrality is that the ISP's want to charge more for bandwith that is ALREADY PAID FOR. While I dont think that any certain political party or candidate will be that much better or worse than the other, in my opinion net neutrality is a no
brainer being that it is the only way to keep the status quo
"democratic nature" of the internet.QoS and tiering cannot
make up for bandwith, which the Telecoms are reluctant to provide (understandably, fiber ain't cheap). However right now at least probably no net neutrality legislation is needed as long as the status quo can be maintained. |
|
NyQuil Kid
8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ
1 edit | The Only Difference between Reps and Dems...
...is that at least Republicans _admit_ to being a**holes. Thanks, but I'd rather take a greedy GOP than a hypocritical Dem any day.
[8F] The NyQuil Kid |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| It'll definitely be interesting...
Karl asks "goodbye national franchises?" We shall see. I'm all for anything that will speed up next-gen deployment, and I can't see how continuing to require local franchises will do that. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but disagree with it. Telcos are private businesses; they should be able to deploy to profitable areas first - that's simply Business 101 and the government should have no authority over that. They'll eventually deploy to everyone - their desire for continuous growth demands it.
I don't see this having too much of an impact on the ATT/BellSouth merger, except for some of the usual cage-rattling. The merger has a good bit of bi-partisan support, especially in the South, so it'll pass sooner rather than later.
The net-neutrality boogeyman will be interesting to watch. Though nothing has happened yet and I think it's ridiculous to legislate a so-far non-existant problem, I'm sure the Dems will do some pandering and try to force through some laws. If they even care one way or the other... It's not like the Dems understand broadband any more than the Republicans did. They just have some different lobbyists.
For me, the change is good because it was relatively moderate Dems that got them over the top. Hopefully that will balance the far-left among them. They'll lose every gain they made in many states if they veer over to high taxes and socialism.
Adam |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC
Finally,
It's time to replace the fat cat republicans who have sold out the FCC to the megacorps, and get back to basics. The FCC was formed to SERVE the public interests. The republicans interpreted that to mean "collect cash from megacorp and let megacorp screw the consumer". Luckily, once they kick Teddy (tubes) Stevens (who has NO CLUE what the 'interweb' is) off the committee, things will move forward. Finally, we can have a national broadband policy, where everyone can expect to get at LEAST a 10/10 connection. Finally, we can use bittorrent to it's full potential. Finally, businesses and individuals can flourish on the INTERNET. Unlike Dubyah, we don't use 'the google', we use google. And unlike Dubyah, the American public believes that high speed internet access is a RIGHT that all americans should have access too. Happy days are here again!
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | Very little will change. And if you have any doubts about that, see the stock market's reaction to the election. They know who is still in charge - the people with money.
»finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5eIXIC&t=1d&c=
And, BTW Ted Stevens is in the Senate, and that House of Congress is still up in the air yet as to who will be in charge. And even if the Dems grab the Senate too, Stevens stays on the committee as the ranking minority member.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Only One Change
The interests pushing legislation will just change what's on the "Pay to the Order of:" line on the campaign contribution checks. It happened in 1994, it will happen in 2006.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Not much will change...
Not much will change over this. The President is still the person who nominates an individual to a position like the FCC board.
The Democrats can promise the world, but can't deliver without a veto proof majority. They can tell you they're going to do everything from "fix" social security, to cure AIDS, to speeding up the harvest and transporting you off this rock, but as long as Bush sits in the white house, he has the power to veto it.
Click....clickclick...Click.
Yep, I think that's Bush's veto pen coming out.....
Americans like divided government. Things will slow down in Washington for a while, and that's probably a good thing...
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE | reply to NyQuil Kid
Re: The Only Difference between Reps and Dems...
There is no difference. Politician is a Politician. Just new people lying to us for the next 4 years. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| reply to karlmarx
Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC
If you think there will be any change in the dysfunctional FCC there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell to you for real cheap, the FCC has been for sale since the first auctions of frequencies where done and political hacks where shocked at how much money this racked in. This made a commission post real plums for people who where only interested in lining their pockets with promise of high paying jobs with the very companies they where suppose to be exercising over sight on after they left office.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Alpine
Re: It'll definitely be interesting...
I agree if it wasn't the telcos but in my opinion, Business 101 only works if there's true competition. We can argue all day long about cable providing TV competition to the telcos but as regulated monopolies, the telcos have a guaranteed position that will fund losses for years until they either give up their video quest (leaving the cable monopoly) or gain a foothold.
That's not business 101 at work. That's massive, government-guaranteed corporations attempting to extend their reach.
The same thing goes for the cable folks. In areas under served by DSL, they are the only broadband choice. To allow them to exploit that monopoly based on the data's purpose goes against everything Business 101 believes.
If we had true competition, Business 101 would say net-neutrality is unnecessary government oversight. Since we don't have true competition, I don't think Business 101 applies. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| reply to N3OGH
Re: Not much will change...
said by N3OGH  :Americans like divided government. Things will slow down in Washington for a while, and that's probably a good thing... +1
I'm all for divided government. Each party has its problems. I can't stand many of the Repubs in Washington right now, but I also think many of the Dems are truly embarassments to the county and hard to take seriously (like our friend KarlMarx.)
But checks and balances have been sorely lacking these past few years, and I'm glad we're getting back to that. I actually hope the Dems DON'T win the Sentate (though it's looking like they may) just to keep Congress divided.
Adam |
|
porkchops
...meh
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Saint Marys, WV
| reply to karlmarx
Re: It's CLEANING HOUSE time at the FCC
said by karlmarx :
Finally, we can use bittorrent to it's full potential.
Shhh... Don't tell them that.
We might end up with national packet-shaping.
But seriously, as long as there is free-enterprise, there will never be internet-equality in terms of bandwidth. The "megacorps" are really the people that control of the residential broadband market. |
|
Dolgan
Premium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Alpine
Re: It'll definitely be interesting...
Thinking that the Telcos will "eventually bring fiber to everyone" is only a pipe dream. Verizon will not be deploying FIOS to huge swaths of the ex-GTE footprint due to the lack of potential subscribers and profitibilty. They are now deploying ADSL2 and more ADSL in the upper midwest states of OH, IN. IL, WI, and MI--do you really think that they will upgrade to FIOS in areas where they are currently deploying this technology?
How much fiber are companies such as TDS Telecom, Century Tel, and Frontier Comm deploying? These are now the major Telcos in rural America as the RBOCs keep spinning off{trying to anyway} their rural customers. Furthermore, many of these rural areas are not served by Cable Co HSI and do not even have the option for any broadband other than Sattelite. The Cable Cos are only upgrading their speed tiers in competitive/profitable markets, just like the Telcos.
The change in control of the House {and possibly the Senate} will do nothing to either speed up or slow down deployments of next gen networks. The major players will continue deploying at the rate which they can justify to their stockholders with good return on investments. The Telecomm and Cable companies are more concerned about the bottom line versus customer service, quality of service, and product offerings than ever before. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Alpine
Re: Not much will change...
said by Alpine :Each party has its problems. I can't stand many of the Repubs in Washington right now ... As if there were 2. After watching 6 years of the Republicans in charge, all we have to show for our work in getting these pansies elected is a bigger government, more entitlements, insane budget deficits. We've now see people who promise even bigger government, more entitlements and far more budget deficits swept into power. In a way, nothing has really changed.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by pnh102 :said by Alpine :Each party has its problems. I can't stand many of the Repubs in Washington right now ... As if there were 2. After watching 6 years of the Republicans in charge, all we have to show for our work in getting these pansies elected is a bigger government, more entitlements, insane budget deficits. Agreed. IMHO, if the Republicans had stuck to the ideas that brought them to power in 1994, this most likely wouldn't have happened.
The problem is power corrupts, and as people spend more time in power, regardless of their affiliation, or moral fortitude, they become more and more corrupt.
More and more folks who would describe themselves as Republicans are describing themselves as Conservatives, as many of the Republicans who have ascended to the Congress in the past couple of elections sure has heck aren't Conservatives as I see 'em.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26
| reply to Alpine
Re: It'll definitely be interesting...
said by Alpine :Karl asks "goodbye national franchises?" We shall see. I'm all for anything that will speed up next-gen deployment, and I can't see how continuing to require local franchises will do that. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but disagree with it. Telcos are private businesses; they should be able to deploy to profitable areas first - that's simply Business 101 and the government should have no authority over that. They'll eventually deploy to everyone - their desire for continuous growth demands it. As it stands now, they are largely able to deploy to the most profitable areas first. Verizon has generally decided to do the suburbs of large cities first and there is nothing preventing that. It's just that if and when they decide to go into a county, city, village or town, they must have permission to leave any parts of the county, city, village or town unconnected. That's not the part that slows things down, it's the negotiation of the franchise agreement with hundreds of different locals officials that slows things down. |
|
Nemokrad
join:2002-04-24
Miami, FL | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: there few things I agree with Democrats on ...
Actually the real reason nothing will happen is that the Senate, House and President all have to approve a bill, and the parties won't approve each others bills. |
|
