how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to LegoPower77
Re: Will the data show regulation the way to go? You have a very valid point.
I wonder how many people said this when Eisenhower subsidized the interstate highway system? Back then, most people in traditionally "lower technology" areas probably thought the same thing most people today do about the current broadband available, "It's good enough for me, so it must be good enough for everyone else.", "I don't need any new roads, my two-lane twisty country road is fine.", "I don't see what you can do with 100Mbps that you can't do with 1.5Mbps", etc etc....
I wonder where our country would be without the interstate system?
I hate to think about where our country will be if we don't take control of a national broadband deployment out of the hands of private companies and enact a viable solution. | |
 LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | said by Matt:I hate to think about where our country will be if we don't take control of a national broadband deployment out of the hands of private companies and enact a viable solution. Scary thought.
I don't know if the comparison with the interstate highway system is very accurate. For one thing, there is a valid argument that interstates promote national defense by allowing for quick movement of troops and equipment. It be hard to make that case for small town broadband access.
Secondly, the interstate system, while funded by taxpayers, was built by private contractors.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to Matt
This is pure socialist thinking dude. I know it is the in-thing these days to bash the US, whining and crying that we don't have more free or almost free benefits. The reality is that we are expanding broadband, this is a very large country compared to other countries and the population densities varies to thousands an acre to 1 per couple hundred acres. It is not nor has it ever been the role of government to regulate/run/operate broadband or any other service. People live with only dial or no Internet connection and do just fine. Let the industry do its thing they are going as fast as they can. There are going to be places left behind as not economically feasible part of life learn to deal with it. Businesses have a right to make a profit, owe reason to exist and any case we all benefit from those profits. No subsidizing of the Internet please want it? Pay for it then. The government should not ever subsidize anything or utility.
Living large in Colorado | |
| This is pure socialist thinking dude.
How so? I admit there is a socialist bent in proposing some possible "federalization" of telecommunications systems, but furthering private-public partnership and creating an atmosphere in which private competition can thrive is not exactly socialist.
A standing army, law enforcement, education ... none of these things are in line with a "capitalist" framework. However, they are not only phenomena of socialisms and fascisms, but Democratic "capitalist" societies, too. There are so many examples of even the most hands-off governments in the world being involved with various affairs that calling any particular thing, other than wholesale nationalization of a specific industry, "socialist" doesn't tread water.
The reality is that we are expanding broadband, this is a very large country compared to other countries and the population densities varies to thousands an acre to 1 per couple hundred acres.
This is relatively true, but even countries of comparable size or comparable population density (a more relevant statistic) have spelled out initiatives and ambitious plans. Those that planned earlier have better penetration and (generally) more competitive environments. We are behind many countries, some with much more population density, some with relatively equivalent ones. However, without better vision, we will fall behind more comparable countries in short time.
There are going to be places left behind as not economically feasible part of life learn to deal with it.
Small government exists largely to ensure this is not the case when it comes to utilities. Utilities are PIVOTAL to growth and economic progress. If a municipality wants to continue to exist or wants to grow, it needs to ensure that important utilities are available in their borders. While this can drive debt in the short-term, it can attract new residents and businesses in the long-term. While not every municipality shares this view, there should be a way for those that do to pursue broadband, either in partnership with a private provider or on their own.
The government should not ever subsidize anything or utility.
Having studied and worked in the utility industry for about thirteen years, I can say your assertion is often correct, but like any ideological notion it does not always work. There are many examples of successful co-ops and locally run utility systems that, while perhaps no longer necessary, were pivotal in ensuring that everyday things we've come to expect like electricity and water were made available to everyone.
I consider myself a conservative and I generally agree that free markets are a good thing, but oversight is also an okay thing, and cooperation in the name of mutual interest is often the best. | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to LegoPower77
said by LegoPower77:I don't know if the comparison with the interstate highway system is very accurate. For one thing, there is a valid argument that interstates promote national defense by allowing for quick movement of troops and equipment. It be hard to make that case for small town broadband access. Not at all. Need I remind you that the internet's predecessor, Arpanet, was developed by the Defense Dep't?
In wartime, as in business, knowledge is power. And effective communications is key to spreading it.
The fact of the matter is that all aspects of our industrial infrastructure contribute to our defensive capabilities. | |
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Yes I know about DARPA, I think that project has achieved its goals, no? I still fail to see how internet access for countryside towns would give us any military advantage since those guys use satellite communications and such just as easily. said by PDXPLT:The fact of the matter is that all aspects of our industrial infrastructure contribute to our defensive capabilities. So we should nationalize all industry?
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
|
