how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-07-22 15:38:20: "No matter who you are, or where you live, or how much money you make ... ..
| |
 
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
| Yes, its a RIGHT which WILL be fought for by young folks. Broadband internet access is ABSOLUTELY a right, and im confident that if the new generation of young minds have their way (which they will) this IS going to happen.
Today, if i know anything about 9/11 and that it was an inside job, its because of the internet.
The internet gives tremendous empowerment to people, so they dont have to beg corporate media to have their voice heard.
The corporate media and the press have been monumental failures in doing their jobs in terms of disclosing the REAL news, not the fake propaganda that they constantly spew out to maintain the status quo. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Yes, its a RIGHT which WILL be fought for by young folks. said by Shriyash  :Broadband internet access is ABSOLUTELY a right, No, it's not. You could make the point it's approaching Utility status, but not right status.
TV is not a right. Driving is not a right. Accessing the Internet is not a right.
Today, if i know anything about 9/11 and that it was an inside job, its because of the internet. ... and the topic goes off the deep end.
The corporate media and the press have been monumental failures in doing their jobs in terms of disclosing the REAL news, not the fake propaganda that they constantly spew out to maintain the status quo. Can't argue with that, however...
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | |
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
| Re: Yes, its a RIGHT which WILL be fought for by young folks. said by KrK :Today, if i know anything about 9/11 and that it was an inside job, its because of the internet. ... and the topic goes off the deep end. Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Einstein said that.
It ok, actually its not ok,
but you dont realize that if you believe the official story, you are thinking what the corporate media want you to think.
Ignorance wont be your bliss.
Look to other sources of information, see and evaluate what they have to say, you might learn a few things.
I did.
This is where the internet, as it stands today, comes in.
Internet is the information superhighway that is NOT YET in the complete control of the elite,
and we have a real RIGHT TO INFORMATION thats uncorrupted by the media moguls. | |
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Yes, its a RIGHT which WILL be fought for by young folks. Oh, I've heard the theories. Everything from Israeli agents to CIA black ops.... things such as missiles, demolition charges, additional explosives, etc etc.
While the mainstream news didn't do a stellar job at explaining the events, subsequent investigations did. I'm confident the damage was done by terrorists flying hijacked planes. I know others believe it's all a setup.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Not even close to a Right Rights by nature are immaterial and only granted to individuals not member of group. One has a right to life liberty and a Pursuit of Happiness (not a right to Happiness). To put it in a practical sense, one has a right to pursuit the use to a utility but does not t have a right to demand others to furnish a utility. This would infringe on the individuals right of others. | |
| |
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
| Re: Not even close to a Right said by Richard B : To put it in a practical sense, one has a right to pursuit the use to a utility but does not have a right to demand others to furnish a utility. I understand what you are saying.
However i am looking at this from another angle.
Information is power,
and its a power that the elite 1% would like to hoard to keep the remaining 99% from finding out.
They would have succeeded, if it wasnt for the internet.
The future years WILL show that to be true.
What stood in the way of the elite taking total control, was the internet, broadband style. | |
| | 
CommonSense
@pmpa.com | Rights aren't granted, humans are born with them. If it's "granted" by a government body, then it can be taken away - this would be known as a "priviledge". | |
|
FortyFour
@tds.net
 from:
tschmidt
thumbs down from:
tschmidt
| It would help to understand the argument I couldn't help posting to this thread after seeing so many people completely misunderstand what's being proposed here.
Nobody is asking for "welfare broadband". This is not a social service.
Equating this to asking the government to buy you a car is just not the right analogy.
A better analogy would be if the state and federal governments refused to build roads leading to your town, and the automakers refused to sell you a car (even if you had the money to buy one, and to pay the road taxes). "Your village is too small. It's not worth us paving out there."
THAT is the correct analogy.
Broadband providers make deals with local and state governments for EXCLUSIVE access to service areas, then they cherry pick the locations they will provide service to, leaving millions of Americans with no hope of broadband service.
Americans with no broadband service are being left out of the information revolution, and will fall behind in opportunity. Communities with no broadband service will never be able to take advantage of the expanded services other communities can offer - remote teaching and learning, distance-enabled medicine, high-tech mobile solutions for fire and police departments, etc.
Access to broadband services SHOULD be a civil right, and nobody is talking about providing poor people with free TV-on-Demand here. The future of community infrastructure is going to depend on broadband access, and it should be available everywhere. We are quickly falling behind the rest of the world in this area and soon will be even less competitive.
Don't even get me started on 5GB caps with astounding overage charges. Someone needs to regulate these greedy bastids a bit. | |
| |
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
| Re: It would help to understand the argument said by FortyFour :
A better analogy would be if the state and federal governments refused to build roads leading to your town, and the automakers refused to sell you a car (even if you had the money to buy one, and to pay the road taxes). "Your village is too small. It's not worth us paving out there."
THAT is the correct analogy.
Broadband providers make deals with local and state governments for EXCLUSIVE access to service areas, then they cherry pick the locations they will provide service to, leaving millions of Americans with no hope of broadband service.
...Access to broadband services SHOULD be a civil right, and nobody is talking about providing poor people with free TV-on-Demand here. The future of community infrastructure is going to depend on broadband access, and it should be available everywhere. Very well said. | |
| | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Agree with your post. Over time access to high speed communications will become essential to fully participate in society. The expectation that all citizens have access to some sort of high speed access is no different then access to other public goods: roads, telephone, water, police, fire, school, justice system, etc.
We are at an interesting time, similar to deployment of electricity during the turn of the last century. At some point society needs to decide if access to broadband (like electricity) is available to all or will only be available where business finds it most profitable to deploy it.
I don't think we are not at that point yet - the Internet is still pretty new and evolving. But over time lack of access will infringe on a citizen's ability to fully participate.
/tom | |
| | |
FortyFour
@tds.net
| Re: It would help to understand the argument I'm not sure I understand why you gave me the thumbs down if you agree with me 
The age of the internet is hard to place exactly, but it's roughly 20 years old. According to wikipedia, within 29 years of the development of the telegraph it was deployed across the ocean to every continent, making worldwide communication possible. I'd hope we could achieve universal broadband more quickly than the telegraph was deployed.
It's not just a citizen's ability to participate that's being hampered. There are many towns across the US suffering from losing business overseas. The federal government suggests that everyone participate in a "new economy", attracting green business, and using innovation to help the US become world leaders in new technologies, yet the federal government also passes laws allowing these ISPs to neglect these communities so that they have no hope of attracting new business.
They also lie about the coverage they've provided, showing coverage maps that blanket a large area, when they may only provide 30% coverage in that area.
It's the typical pattern of the past 8 years - pay lip service to some nebulous idea that sounds great, but do nothing to ensure it can be carried out. And above all, support the big business lobbyists in whatever they ask for. | |
| | | |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH | Re: It would help to understand the argument said by FortyFour :
I'm not sure I understand why you gave me the thumbs down if you agree with me
Sorry about that fat fingered the button - fixed it. | |
| | | |
CommonSense
@pmpa.com
| "Universal" deployment of telegraph? Get a grip - there was a central telegraph office in a small town, more in a larger city. Everyone had to go to that office to send a telegraph - that's "Universal" coverage? By that standard, we already have universal deployment of broadband; there's at least one place in every city that has broadband availability... | |
| |
CommonSense
@pmpa.com
| More correct analogy but a useless arguement. You're suggesting that broadband companies be forced to provide everyone at the same time with access. Of course, if they do that, the business model will fail and the company will go bankrupt; then no one will have access...
The whole reason there is a disparity is because a company has to make money, period. If it doesn't, it fails, period. This is simple economics. Of course the alternative is forcing the issue, communist style, and we see how well that has worked out in the world - see Cuba, Yemen, pre-1988 USSR. And don't point to China - the only reason they are succeeding is that they are becoming capitalist... | |
| 
MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY
| Broadband should be regulated as a public utility At his point I see internet access as a public utility. Availability of some form of broadband internet connection should be universally mandated like electricity, gas, water, sewerage, telephone. I would submit telephone is being slowly replaced by broadband internet as the primary communication method of the times. It's rapidly becoming a necessary service for modern life, both for personal & for business. People in rural area's are gonna be catching the shaft on broadband deployment without legislation mandating availability. Without government mandate, ISP's will not deploy broadband to rural markets. It's unprofitable for them to do so. Sorry rural American, no broadband/FIOS for you. Please enjoy the wonders of the internet via your 56k dial up connection or satellite.
This highlights a glaring failure of the purely capitalist economic model. Having a robust, cheap, and most importantly, universally accesible data infrastructure
is what this country needs.
Just my 2 cents. | |
| |
CommonSense
@pmpa.com
| Re: Broadband should be regulated as a public utility you had me (and were making sense) right up to:
"This highlights a glaring failure of the purely capitalist economic model."
First, there's no such thing as a "working" purely capitalist economic model; no government has ever given it the opportunity. However, this isn't it's failure, because it hasn't failed - people have. The success of the United States as a nation is a tribute to how well capitalism can truly work (despite severe hampering by government). The most you could say is that it is a 'limitation' of capitalism, and it is surely that. Capitalism requires supply and demand, and return on investment. In rural areas, the return is too low for the investment of infrastructure. It worked the same with roads and with national electrification. The solution was for essential infrastructure to be put in the hands of local communities (municipal electric, electric coops, national and state roadways systems, etc.)
The difference now is that telecoms are preventing local communities from building that infrastructure - using government to help them. But they're also not building the infrastructure themselves. And what you get is what we have. If we're looking to place blame it's in how government is done, not how capitalism works. Democracy is great until money buys influence...which is all the time.
Now if government would get out of the way and capitalism could be allowed to work, let's see what would happen...
1) Telecom providers deploy infrastructure where it nets the greatest returns (large cities first, then medium)
2) Advances in computing, research, education, healthcare, etc., etc., ad naseum are enjoyed only where the infrastructure exists
3) Due to a mobile community, smaller communities see themselves falling behind the technology curve, and local citizens want change
4) local communities form "utilities" to provide necessary infrastructure and pay for through bonds
5) Telecom service providers provide services on infrastructure they didn't have to build because it is now economically feasible
6) Local communities grow & thrive due to technology advancements equal to larger cities
7) Everybody wins
Where this has broken down is in the step where local communities decide to provide their own infrastructure and services, and the next step, where service providers jump on that infrastructure. What has actually happened is that the service providers, with names like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, etc., have sued those communities to stop them, or influenced politicians to pass regulatory restrictions on the building of infrastructure, to reduce or remove "competition". The electric incumbents didn't push too hard to stop local communities from building their own electric systems, thinking that they wouldn't be successful and they'd eventually buy up those systems for pennies-on-the-dollar. What they didn't count on was that the munis and coops would be wildly successful, which they were. The telecom incumbents have read that book and are making damn certain that doesn't happen with "their" industry. | |
|
anonuser23
@direcpc.com
| broadband is needed everywhere No, broadband shouldn't be free, but it should be AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. All I have access to is dial up. Everything these days requires a "network" connection, its hard enough to even update windows and security on my computer never mind being able to stream high definition movies to my tv.
Broadband availability is a civil right.
(satellite is 99.9% ripoff!) | |
| |
commonSense
@pmpa.com | Re: broadband is needed everywhere If it's a Civil Right then why don't you have it? And who are you going to have arrested because you don't? | |
| estover
join:2004-03-16
Valencia, PA
clubs:
| You can make the difference. I cant believe we are even talking about this as a "right".
I have a simple answer to the problem of how to pay for it.
A group of people here that believe that it is in fact a right, need to start up a NFP group and collect as much money from like minded people and roll out the service to the Billy Bobs of the country. DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR IT! My sons mother is one of those that believe that everything should be given to her, she makes me sick. So does talk like this. We pay enough in taxes.
And for you guys that live in the city and never venture out into the country, there are still dirt roads and areas that have no stop lights or stop signs even. Believe it or not, people still ride horses around. Yes even to the store and the owner welcomes them, horse shit and all. Some of you guys have such a narrow view of how things are in true rural America. | |
| |
FortyFour
@tds.net
| Re: You can make the difference. Please see my comment above. Nobody is asking for anyone to buy broadband for people with their taxes.
Does the government buy phone service for you? Do they buy your electricity? No, they don't. But the government DOES require that if some electric company wants your town's business, that they make electricity available to ALL.
What do you think would happen if RuralElectric Inc. was granted the exclusive license to provide electricity to EastCupcake Pa, and then refused to wire your house because it was the only one at the end of a 2 mile road, so it would be expensive to provide service?
Since you live in the country, it's very likely that your phone and electric companies spent more money running wires to your house and keeping them repaired than they'll get back from your monthly fees in the first couple years of service. Yet, nobody is accusing you of "utility welfare" or of raising their rates, which is probably the case.
Try to understand the argument before you go ranting about people wanting things given to them. | |
| | | estover
join:2004-03-16
Valencia, PA
clubs:
| Re: You can make the difference. See you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
I belong to a co-op I paid a fee for the run to my house, a lot more than 3 years worth of electric. By bills are much more than the people just 10 miles down the road that are not part of the Co-Op. I did not ask for a hand out, when I called them, I wanted, not needed, them to deliver juice to my new place. I could have went solar/wind or even hydro, The stream is more than capable of turning a small generator. It was just easier and more cost effective to have them run it. And no they are not required to run lines to my house with out being paid, but for a fee they did, and happily I might add.
And dont get me started on how much it cost to run the fiber to the street. And Im not even sure I will ever need to use it. But it is there incase.
A business I service in BFE needed a high speed connection. Guess what they did? Yep they PAID FOR IT!
Now with the unused bandwith during the evening thet allow access via WiFi to local people for a small fee.
Thats the way it works. | |
| | | |
|
