how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
2674 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Yakup
Re: A Right! said by Yakup:I believe we can live without electricity, phone, or even driving just like without internet. However today so many businesses rely on internet for their existance I think internet is just like electricity. There is a flaw with your thinking though. Tell those 12 people that died recently in this heatwave in AZ. It's a necessity to keep water pumping, toilets flushing, fridges working to keep food fresh, I can keep going. But electricty is definetly a necessity.
Phone? Yea.. but still, it's considered a lifeline for emergency purposes. You can purchase a cell phone today and use it for 911 service at no charge. SOme states require that disconnected phones stay active for 911 only use if requested and especially during non-pay temporary disconnect. So phones can go either way.
In this post, I think the general topic is about residential broadband, not business class service either.
Also, to a previous post above, it was mentioned that work relies on internet services for 401K and other services. I do believe that if companies consolodate federally required data and information on a company intranet only delivery system that they must give access at the work place for those with out computers. Or, they have to make it available in another form.
So still, I haven't heard a convincing argument on how the internet is a necessity. | |
| reply to carlinniss
said by carlinniss: I learned myself using the Internet. Is this proper English? | | |
|
| reply to RayW
You can still access the Internet without BB. Dialup will allow access to all that you have stated. | |
 a
@qwest.net | reply to Brownbay
broadband is like having cruise control, you just have it & freak out if it doesn't work right all the time... | |
ZynikerZynikerPremium
join:2004-12-25
Anaheim, CA | reply to Shadow01
To some extent, yes...if he meant he learned something of himself by way of using the internet...but I don't think that was the main part of this post... 
--
Join the Theuth.com Distributed Computing Team!»distributed.theuth.com/deep_thought.htm | |
 IamZedPremium
join:2001-01-10
Dayton, OH | reply to ylen131
said by ylen131:luxury, person can survive with out it You could live without an education, too.
--
A thing worth doing is worth doing to excess | |
 Mrq5The Fab Four
join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI | reply to Brownbay
Without reading all the replies I vote with the topic starter.
Broadband is a normal progression from speech, writing, Pony Express, horse & buggy, electricity, running water, automobiles, flight, etc...
At one time all of the above was NOT a right. All have proven to provide a much better quality of life which quickly transformed into a RIGHT rather than a luxury for the wealthy. Its only logical that Broadband should be next. Broadband offers a much better quality of life for all that use it. Sure, you could have continued to use the out-house and live without running water but human nature asks WHY???
| |
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to charlie hp
This is not unlike what some CLECs were proposing after the Telecom Act of '96 started to get bogged down--the ILECs would be just wholesale facility providers, and all retail would be through separate retail enterprises--and the ILECs would have to treat all other retailers the same as they treated their affiliate.
As a proposal, it was a non-starter following the FCC's turn away from forcing competition following Reed Hundt's replacement by William Kennard in the Chairmanship. It had (and still has) good arguments in favor, but is doomed in the current environment where the whining Baby Bells claim that any lack of a monopoly on their part is a "disincentive to investment".
Philosophically, this proposal is sort of like saying that a motor vehicle transport system is a vital need--so the governmental units will use private industries to build backbone (roads) and the actual "transport" will be done by others using more-or-less standardized transport vehicles....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to Anubis Prime
The Government has to fund RIGHTS..... A more important fact:
If something is a RIGHT, the government has to fund it for those who can't afford to buy it themselves. Examples include public school fees and lawyers for those accused of a crime punishable by imprisonment.
Basic telephone service is not (yet) a RIGHT. For heaven's sake, grow up people. Your compulsive needs to game and flame aren't sufficient justification to call BB a right.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| reply to ylen131
Re: A Right! said by "ylen13":
luxury, person can survive with out it.
What about a postal mailbox? Is that a luxury? Or is it an essential component of a free state / free population, in order to exercise their essential political rights?
Let's face it, *everything* is "on the internet" these days. It is (mostly still) a very democratizing medium. In fact, many gov't services and documents are available over the internet. Even more, some of those are going to be made internet-only, for the most part, within 10-15 years, if only for reasons of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If that happens, then a citizen not having internet access, would be very disenfranchising, I think. As much so as not having a postal mailbox, if not actually more so. | |
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah":
The government subsidised UNIVERSAL phone service. Can you say that the internet is different? not really. Both were considered 'luxuries' when they started, but today you can't survive without a phone (except for some very rare obscure area's). In subsidizing phone service everywhere, the early adopters were forced to pay more to make up for the unprofitable customers. Do we want to do that again for broadband?
The problem is simply wires. It costs a LOT of money to run wires everywhere. Running fibre to obscure towns, obscure roads in those towns, and widely distributed houses on those roads would be a very very expensive proposition. But is it fair to them that they don't have it? I mean, the government gave the cable and phone companies HUGE subsidies to build out in the populated areas (i.e. right of way, etc). Doesn't that free subsidies give the companies a legal obligation to support EVERYONE then? I would argue yes, since the telco's and cableco's have gotten subsidized by the government, they have an obligation to run wire everywhere.
Here's a wild idea - you know that "Federal Universal Service fee", that most DSL subscribers get charged (cable is currently exempt, being just an "information service provider", not having anything to do with telephony)? Instead of the ILEC charging that (and not doing much with it) - why not allow for the possibility for the subscriber themselves to help assist in providing that "universal service", and in the process, obtain a credit that cancels out their having to pay that fee? What I'm suggesting is that - using Verizon DSL subscribers as an example here - customers should run their own WiFi "hotspots", on behalf of "universal service"-type benefits to their neighborhood and society at large.
Here's how it could work technically, in order to ensure that too much paying-subscriber bandwidth isn't used up, and that their own personal computers are protected: 1) first, rate-limit the (public) wireless connections in the router firmware, either in the DSL modem or the wireless router, and 2) allow the "public access" wireless connections, to use a secondary PPPoE session connection / secondary IP address, different than the customers, and from the POV of the customer's computers or the dynamic IP address that they recieve from Verizon as an authenticated paying customer, those wireless connection IPs would be just another random "outside" IP on the internet at large.
If Verizon were "nice" about this, they would even provision the DSL subscriber's lines for a small extra potential bit of bandwidth on their ATM network, such that only those (public) wireless users could use it, but the subscriber couldn't. So the customer still gets their 1.5Mbit or whatever, and if the line can support it, an extra 128-256Kbit for any potential passer-by wireless users.
Even *better* than that - I've been thinking recently about all of the possible uses for portable, WiFi-enabled "web pads" (and variants thereof). Verizon could sell WiFi enabled portable devices, that could be used to: 1) surf the web (say, a small 640x480 LCD / touchpad), or 2) place VOIP calls (kind of like a cell-phone, but WiFi-enabled), and 3) buyers of these devices, could use them in conjunction with public-access-enabled customer-run WiFi "hotspots"! (As well as potentially publically-run ones as well.)
This sort of joint private ownership of access infrastructure is easily possible, given the technology of today, and given appropriate safeguards, could be done in a way which does not technically nor legally "endanger" the private owners of this infrastructure.
It would be somewhat similar to those people that have their own power-generating equipment on-site, and in some cases, instead of drawing power from the "public" grid all of the time, sometimes they actually can contribute power back, and get paid a credit for doing so. I have no idea how common that currently is, but I've heard of that being the case in some places.
It would be conceptually similar to the telco installing a wire-line telephone to a private user, and also taking the opportunity to string a second phone line to the premises, and with the homeowner's permission (and proper credit), attaching a local-usage "mini cell tower" to the property as well. Shared joint ownership of infrastructure. It *could* work, should people be forward-thinking enough to accept it.
In fact, it's not a whole lot different than the current situations regarding publically-accessable payphones, and public postal-deposit boxes that you can place mail into. And better still, there is no "physical" issue with regards to security or access, with WiFi. As you as you have the device on and broadcasting a signal, that's all you need! | |
| reply to Mrq5
said by "Mrg5":
Broadband is a normal progression from speech, writing, Pony Express, horse & buggy, electricity, running water, automobiles, flight, etc...
At one time all of the above was NOT a right. All have proven to provide a much better quality of life which quickly transformed into a RIGHT rather than a luxury for the wealthy. Its only logical that Broadband should be next. Broadband offers a much better quality of life for all that use it.
That does make a lot of sense, even if that viewpoint has a slight "liberal" leaning to it.
How do you define "broadband" though? As any sort of faster-than-dialup internet access? "Always on" internet access, perhaps regardless of speed?
Perhaps a contrasting POV:
Even homeless bums can beg enough change to use a pay-phone though, they don't get a free phone-line installed just for them or their own street-corner.
So I guess my POV is somewhere in-better. Internet access in general is a very democratizing thing, and valuable to increase the quality-of-life for society. So many things are being done "on the internet". So I think that there should indeed be either "universal", or at least inexpensive public access to the internet. Whether that involves connecting cheap low-end access terminals to pay-phones, or what, I'm not sure. But it will eventually happen. | |
 BIGMIKEPremium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | reply to Brownbay
Re: is the telephone a Luxury or necessity Century-old telephone tax may finally be repealed
(Washington, D.C.) Rep. Dave Camp today voted to repeal the three percent federal excise tax on telephone bills and other telecommunications services.
Congress first enacted a telephone excise tax to help pay for the Spanish-American War in 1898. Back then, this "temporary" tax amounted to one penny on long-distance phone calls costing more than 15 cents. Over the years, the federal phone tax has survived several attempts to phase it out and scale it back. Congress made it a permanent 3 percent tax on telecommunications services in 1990.
“The Spanish American War Telephone Tax is a relic of the 19th Century -- back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders," said Camp. "It's time to make the phone tax surrender after its 102-year battle with the American people. The tax is unfair and this repeal provides direct tax relief to almost every household."
The tax applies to phone services such as subscriber line charges, add-on features like call-waiting and caller ID, toll call services, directory assistance, and long distance and wireless. “This is just another example of how Washington DC has taken the taxpayer’s money for a war that started in 1898 and ended over one hundred years ago. I am pretty sure we have paid off the Spanish-American War, ” Camp said. “The last time I checked, the telephone was a necessity, not a luxury.”
»wwwc.house.gov/Camp/newsarticle.···rdID=325 | |
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Mrq5
Re: A Right! except that not all that you have listed is a constitutionally protected right
at this point alot of us would have a hard time getting by without broadband service some would have to actually commute or move because of the ability to telecommute and dev work done from home. thats not to say it can't be done without though. the public libraries in my area are doing a bangup job of providing that highspeed outlet to the public with existing tax dollars
i really dont see broadband as a right. perhaps we should focus our activism on things like healthcare, public transportation, the homeless epidemic, abused children i could go on. | |
 kangabilDo It Now, Do It RightPremium
join:2005-05-15
Australia | reply to Brownbay
Try having this argument with say a Kalahari Dessert tribesman, a Bangladeshi tsunami victim and a hobo; don't think they would consider it at all let alone give the topic a rating out of 1 to 10.
Get serious folks.
--
Who was that masked man? | |
| reply to Brownbay
more than just a 'utility'
certainly NOT a luxury. luxury is a relative concept, and depends from person to person.
now, those people who are drawing comparisons between 56K and 10MBPS, are deludeded and hypocritical when they say, well 56k is a necessity, but the latter is a luxury.
if you go to 3rd world countries, then screw 56K, even proper electricity and running water are considered a luxury, because they have none of that right now.
so, who do we draw comparisons to? draw intelligent and relevant comparisons please, and in doing so, you will come to the unmistakable conclusion that 10 MBPS, or 10GBPS, it will never be a luxury, but will always remain a necessity for the people concerned, the very people who are buying or thinking of buying it in the first place.
so stop with the morality BS. | |
| reply to Anubis Prime
I'm glad to know that you consider poor people to be expendable. I'll be sure to remember that, so that if I ever see you in a difficult situation, I'll supress my good samaritan urges and spit in your face.
By the way, housing and healthcare ARE neccessary for survival, Knuckledrag, which is why they are rights. I suppose next you're going to argue for privatizing Social Security, because old people can live off cat food just fine. | |
approval from:
Matt3 
| reply to IamZed
quote:
You could live without an education, too.
Given the tenor of his post, I suspect that he already does. | |
| reply to G_Poobah
You're very right about LEO satellites. In fact, as I recall you can do it with just 288, plus on-orbit backups, and it covers the entire world (Minus parts of Antarctica, but who cares? The penguins prefer WiFi.). As great as fiber is, offering effectively unlimited bandwidth, someone should have done a sat network first, to offer service to all the parts of the US that won't see fiber for 5-15 years, and all the non-industrialized parts of the world that won't see fiber for 150-200 years. | |
| reply to Shadow01
said by Shadow01:said by carlinniss: I learned myself using the Internet. Is this proper English? No butit proves his point even more. He has assholes like you to teach him better. | |
|
