| reply to ultracooldave
Re: a "policy" No, you have it all wrong. The republicans KNOW internet. Remember their leader, Ted "the tubes" Stevens, taught us that the internet is a series of tubes, and you can't move a dump truck down the tube. Why, just last week, one of my friends tried to send me the internet, and it took DAYS to get here. All those movie pirates are clogging the tubes, and the republicans are the roto-rooter man who can clean it up. We need to stop allowing trucks into the tubes, that's how you fix the internet.
Neither party 'get's it'. The democrats want social welfare, and the republicans worship the holy grail of capitalism. We don't WANT subsidized internet, what we DO want is a rational policy to provide EVERYONE with high speed (read FIBER) connections. I for one, would be happy to see the government MANDATE that any company that wants to provide internet, will need to run fiber, AND have open access to said network. Let's build out the internet just like we did the telephone, highway system, electricity grid in this country. I don't care if a company builds it, I don't care if they make a guaranteed return on their investment. I DO care if it's a monopoly position, where the incumbent sets the prices and terms.
In my world, Verizon, AT&T, Qworst, Comcrap and all the others offer SERVICES over a government owned infrastructure .Hell, Let verizon OWN the infrastrcture if they want, they just can't sell services over it. We could wire FIBER to every single home in this country for $30 billion, or about 2 months of what we pay for Iraq.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by karlmarx:I for one, would be happy to see the government MANDATE that any company that wants to provide internet, will need to run fiber, AND have open access to said network. The only problem with that statement is that it just wont work in reality. What would the incentive be for a company to build a network then? Think about it, why would Telco X spend millions/billions deploying a network for everyone else to use? Why would Telco X spend further millions/billions upgrading said network for other companies to benefit? I am not saying the idea of "high speed for all" is bad, I am simply pointing out that its a Utopian dream that cant work in 2008 America (at least in the way you present it).
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to karlmarx
The problem with separation, is that you gain mass inefficiencies in the system by eliminating the most obvious synergies... this in turn will drive up prices. So the question is, would the "competition" brought about by your plan really lower prices, or would it just spread the costs around more? |
|
|
|
| reply to karlmarx
here is an idea; why don't you run for public office in DC? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to karlmarx
Elderly people and the inner tubes don't mix. Some folks are not and never will be computer savvy. McCain's policy was thought up by an assistant as are most of the policies of every candidate and president since Washington.
McCain is a little dated. 
|
|
| Don't ask me to be president. my FIRST job would be to take care of that 9/11 business, whatever it took. we cannot have respect for ourselves or get it from others with these murderers laughing at us on the internet! If it took a third world war, so be it. Doing nothing is an open invitation for it to happen again. If we had to wreck half of Pakistan, so be it! |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to wifi4milez
I don't know why I'm still astonished this rationale is still around...
Q. Why would anyone want to build a datacenter where everyone else can stick their own server in there?
A. Because there's nothing in such proposals that the the owner would have to provide access to the DC for free.
Wait, we're not talking about datacenters or any other such thing. Sorry, forgot that apparently broadband infrastructure couldn't possibly work under the same concept...
KM |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | That'd be a great argument were it not for the fact that incumbents, unlike datacenter operators, are forced by government to lease access at wholesale rates. If you own a datacenter, you have an incentive to differentiate your product so you can garner a higher price, thereby acquiring more profit. Under the 1996 telecommunications act, ILECs have to lease access at government-regulated rates.
Telcos don't pour billions into FTTP just for the heck of it. The idea behind services like FiOS is that down the line, there will be a big profit to be made. Without the potential for big rewards, what incentive is there for firms to take big risks? |
|
| My second job would be a fasttrac of several hundred nucular plants in the next 10 years, the environment studies be damned, all this talk of a huge grid and wind leaves out the simple fact that there is a tremendious drop off the further you transport electricty, build those suckers right next to where they are needed.
Lets build 5 right here in LA, clean up the air and stop with the greenhouse gasses, keep the jobs and money here! I am happy to have one across the street! |
|
2 edits | reply to ultracooldave
Well why you are busy avenging stuff... How about we take you down a trip called memory lane.
1) Timothy McVeigh was a White terrorist and a fundamentalist. In no means did we go after All White Christian Males or Hate groups after his attack.
2) Ted Kazinski was a Nutjob who blew people up because he hated technology. Another White male Prodigy.
3) Anthrax Scientist was an evil genius. White male once again.
4) This church shooter that killed "liberals" by no means was Muslim. He was a radical Christian.
5) The Bosnian Serbs that Massacred a few hundred thousand Muslims in the name of Christianity and Territory, not Muslims either.
6) Hitler backed by the Baptist, Methodist, and Catholic Church exterminated 6 million people. Jews, Blacks, Gays, Gypsies. Hitler was no Muslim and nor were the churches that supported the worst Genocide in History.
7) Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell anybody? Can we say Mega Churches spreading hate against gays in the name of "God". They might as well be radical Imams, as their message is no different.
Long story short, when you get done pulling your head out of your ass, you might see there are jackasses in every religion. Since you wish to start lumping everyone int he same basket, I'd say those assholes known as Christians seem to be taking the top prize. Maybe we should start a War on Christianity, seeing how many they start around the world. Otherwise, we can write the bad apples off as aberrations among the many. Your Pick. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:I don't know why I'm still astonished this rationale is still around... Q. Why would anyone want to build a datacenter where everyone else can stick their own server in there? A. Because there's nothing in such proposals that the the owner would have to provide access to the DC for free. Wait, we're not talking about datacenters or any other such thing. Sorry, forgot that apparently broadband infrastructure couldn't possibly work under the same concept... KM The situation you describe is exactly how the next generation networks (FIOS) are set up now. In fact, Verizon has already struck some reseller agreements. The difference between whats happening now and what karlmarx suggested, is that one is a forced relationship while the other is a business relationship. Business relationships occur when both parties find value in a given deal.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
| reply to jc100
Well put, jc100. People seem to forget that most of the troublesome events in history have roots on religion. Anything can be dangerous when used improperly.
We're overpopulated with lobbyists. Maybe we can point these misguided religious types in that direction.
All lobbyists are members of some bad religion that's different from yours! They eat babies! Go get 'em! |
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to jaminus
said by jaminus: Under the 1996 telecommunications act, ILECs have to lease access at government-regulated rates. Yeap, and as I understand it, the rates that were set by the government...were set based on what the ILECs reported were their costs.
Of course, the ILECs did not inflate those costs at all...right? They didn't have to provide any cost justifications as I've read...
KM |
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to wifi4milez
Right! Except VZ doesn't have to share with anyone. Perhaps there should be regulation stating you must offer to share at some set pricing (set by VZ, not otherwise) - standard rates - so VZ can't say "we won't lick our shoes so no resale for you"...
Who is VZ reselling with currently?
The biggest problem is VZ will always be able to undercut the third-party service. I really believe infrastructure should be separated from services, forcibly perhaps.
KM |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | reply to KoolMoe
»www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/filereqt.html
ARMIS reports, which include detailed cost allocation forms, are required from all ILECs except for those in a handful of markets with have been deemed sufficiently competitive for the FCC to relax, or in some cases, eliminate price caps. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:The biggest problem is VZ will always be able to undercut the third-party service. I really believe infrastructure should be separated from services, forcibly perhaps. KM Ahh, but thats the fatal flaw in your argument. Forcing the provider to allow others to use their network "at a price the provider sets" is somewhat pointless. Those that chose not to offer a viable resale channel, will simply offer access at a very high rate. This will effectively detour most other carriers.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to jaminus
Kind of relevant?
I don't see any direct correlation between those filings and the rates "the government" set for those TA'96 lease requirements. Could be...but I don't see any such match...
KM |
|
