Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | yeah, but...
at what cost...? it's nice they want to implement all of this stuff, but how much am i going to get dinged for it...? not to mention by 2015 anything could happen... it's just to far out in the future to matter at this point... |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| umm, define univeral.
If it's TRULY universal, then sure, I would support subsidies. But only if it's classified as a utility, and provided to every homeowner that wants it, at a reasonable price. Otherwise, this is just pork spending for the megacorps.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb 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
| said by karlmarx  :Otherwise, this is just pork spending for the megacorps. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacorps
Note all the megacorps are fictional.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Terrible, incredibly subjective cite. Even Wikipedia says so at the top. Much more of a bromide than a Wikipedia entry.
Consider: If General Electric isn't as fine an example of a "megacorp" as has ever existed, I'll defecate in my hat and wear it. And there are many others. |
|
ansar
Search for HighSpeed
join:2004-12-10
Utica, MS | I agree
I would support subsidies and tax incentives for the expansion of broadband to rural america. If the government is going to get involved, I agree it should be in catagorized as a utility and provided to everyone. |
|
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Re: I agree--NOT!
Or should it be crammed down everybody’s throat even if one has no need or desire to use the service and then get sent the bill compliments of Uncle Sam. When I see mega corporate network getting by with a lot less speed 100Mbps broadband is unnecessary toy! |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| No its not
IF cablevision can do it with the narad tech that they are testing then ftth can do it easily.
The problem is not the technology both Verizon,Cablevision, and the isps that do ftth have the tech. The problem is are these companies willing to spend the money to roll it out and upgrade their backbones to handle all that data?
|
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| 25 for Metros, 2 for Rural, Maybe
Three cheers for the FTTH Council trying to exercise some leadership. Don't expect anymore than 25Mbs for most metropolitan areas and 2Mbs for rural areas in 2015 (if we're lucky) if you oppose such leadership. Of course some places in our country and the rest of the world will have much faster speeds. Those lucky areas will get to use the internet in ways we haven't even thought about yet. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Leadership? It's a group of vendors pushing for taxpayer funding of a network that would significantly benefit them financially. Visionaries they ain't. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | reply to Asmodeus
Re: yeah, but...
How about we get off the download side and look at UPLOADS which have been lacking for years!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
joebarnhart
Paxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA
| FTTH is the real deal
I doubt anything will change at the federal level. And that's too bad. For those who have FTTH, the fast connection enables you to use the Internet much more effectively. The only bad thing is that everyone doesn't have it yet. At least FTTH is going into some new construction now, and is being deployed in some communities. My homeowner's assoc. just got »www.paxio.com and it is incredible.
 |
|
alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  Here we go again......Muni Fiber!
The FTTH Council said 2015, because they want to stir people up. Nothing will get done unless the Masses want it. Verizon is the only Telco that sees the need for FTTH, even some of you guys think of it as extra service and not a necessity. FTTH should be more like a utility, since it will handle everything digital into your home. The only thing I see as a future for Copper, is a path for back-up diversity.
So talk to your Communities and Cities, because nothing will get done unless you ask for it. |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | reply to joebarnhart
Re: FTTH is the real deal
How come you haven't upgraded to the gigabit service?  |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | This exists already
It's called "Sweden" |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to karlmarx
Re: umm, define univeral.
said by karlmarx :If it's TRULY universal, then sure, I would support subsidies. I don't want to subsidise anybodies porn. |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :If it's TRULY universal, then sure, I would support subsidies. But only if it's classified as a utility, and provided to every homeowner that wants it, at a reasonable price. Otherwise, this is just pork spending for the megacorps. of course you would advocate another new series of wealth redistributions in the form of subsidies... what more should people around here expect from you other than the fact that you hate commerce and worship government intervention into the lives of it's citizens at nearly every level... in other words, when will you stop being a boy and grow into a man...? |
|
Loker
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND
clubs:
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by karlmarx :Otherwise, this is just pork spending for the megacorps. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegacorpsNote all the megacorps are fictional. What about GE?
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking |
|
scrummie02
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| reply to axus
Re: This exists already
and you pay a substantially higher amount of taxes in Sweden as well. With the inefficiency in which our government runs, no thanks. I'd rather have private companies run the lines, it will get done quicker and correctly.
Besides, with most people here distrustful of the government wanting to keep it out of their lives, do they seriously think the same government that taps At&T's lines won't tap their own?
--
"I hate conservatives, but I really hate liberals." - Matt Stone
»www.reason.com/ |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to Asmodeus
Re: umm, define univeral.
Well commerce has left large chunks of the population unserved. Many of those unserved, pay rates to cablecos and or telcos for other services which helped fund the rollout of broadband to those, like yourself, who were lucky enough to be served. You didn't pay all the costs of broadband rollout to yourself. Your broadband rollout was funded by profits from rates paid by other customers. Granted this isn't a government subsidy but it isn't you paying your own way either. If others aren't going to get the same opportunities you had then maybe you could understand why they might feel cheated, especially after many of them helped pay for broadband rollout to people who, now that they have theirs, tell those who have been left out to piss off and die. |
|
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to richardpor
Re: I agree--NOT!
It's called promoting the general welfare (Preamble, US Constitution), whether you personally need or use it is irrelevant, some do and will. Think outside yourself 
I agree it should be a utility, if the US Government had not pumped money into things like the electrical grid in programs like the TVA, I bet a lot of those areas would still be without power. If it helps the country prosper and grow, then let's do it...oh wait, we have that mess in Iraq we'll be fighting for the next century, well..suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck there goes the money. |
|
