Topic 'Re: Not a surprise' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900020 en Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:07:52 EDT Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:07:52 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21912142 said by pnh102:

How is it a conspiracy?
That's my question.
said by pnh102:

This article claims explicitly that such data is needed.
Because such data is needed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21912142 Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:21:24 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902588 said by funchords:

Since you're convinced this is a vast conspiracy to make maps, I'm not sure that I can convince you of anything. How is it a conspiracy?

This article claims explicitly that such data is needed.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902588 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:59:44 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902382 said by pnh102:

said by birdfeedr:

So how come they ask a lot more than number of and age of people? Marital status, whether I consider myself caucasian or other, what's my family income, and a lot more.
Because the Census Bureau is not following the Constitution. Only a mere head count is required. Nothing more, nothing less.
As with the 10-year interval, head count is the minimum prescribed. The census *could* be performed yearly, or even monthly, as it fits within the specified ten-year maximum interval. As with the head count, other things may be requested of respondents as they are not specifically excluded by the Constitution.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902382 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:25:38 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902341 said by pnh102:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.
Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
Really? Then they've been violating the Constitution for pretty much my entire life.

You might want to check the wording in the Constitution for the wording that specifically excludes collection of "extra" data.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902341 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:20:28 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902279 said by coldmoon:

Ok, so lets suppose we do add the questions to the census and we get actual data from those questions. Who determines what questions are asked and how do you structure those questions to get usable technical data?

Remember that there are still questions as to what Broadband really means. If the "experts" are still not on the same page, how do you expect any data from the public to shed light on this?
Create a set of questions like:

1) Do you have Internet service
2) If the answer to #1 was "yes", is your connection:
    _ Dial-up
    _ Less than 1Mbps download
    _ Greater than 1Mbps but less than 10Mbps download
    _ Greater than 10 Mbps download

Or something to that effect.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21902279 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:13:39 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901196
But go visit the Census bureau's web site and see all the current products that are there. You might be surprised what this agency actually does.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901196 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:57:34 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901112 said by pnh102:

said by Koil:

You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again.
Because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear about requiring an enumeration, or head count.

The Supreme Court affirmed this as well in 1999:

»www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/199···_98_404/
I think this reply in the other earlier thread addresses the unconstitutional part:

the Constitution does permit the Census to do more than count heads... Read the actual text of the document:

Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

See that part that says "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct" ? That basically means that Congress can, via legislation, add or subtract from the Census questions and information gathered. The Constitution only states that the Census MUST count people, but it does not prohibit or disallow further information to be gathered.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901112 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:46:08 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901104 said by funchords:

From your point-of-view (why should government repeat the efforts), why not repeal the Census clause, since private companies already estimate the population of states, counties, cities, and towns?Because no method of estimation is 100% accurate. A head count is the only possible way to find out who lives where and to distribute congressional districts evenly and fairly.

said by funchords:

Much of commerce relies on the free aggregated data (including the extra-constitutional data) provided by the Census bureau.
I find that very hard to believe. Private businesses need current population data, not data that could potentially be just under 10 years old. For them to depend on the census for such data would be unwise.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901104 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:43:51 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901018 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21901018 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:28:12 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900883
said by pnh102:

Why should the government duplicate the efforts of private industry?
Bias? Efficiency? Accuracy?

From your point-of-view (why should government repeat the efforts), why not repeal the Census clause, since private companies already estimate the population of states, counties, cities, and towns?

Can you imagine the arguments over which company's or researcher's view of the population of Colorado versus New Mexico ought to decide the Congressional representation there?

Going beyond the original constitutional intent, there are other reasons worth weighing: Much of commerce relies on the free aggregated data (including the extra-constitutional data) provided by the Census bureau. Without that data, start-up companies would have to bear the burden of buying or accumulating the data or do without it; Either way, the small business suffers if the Census isn't done as it currently is being done.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900883 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:11:01 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900829 said by pnh102 :
Why should the government duplicate the efforts of private industry?
Probably because the data collected by the govt. would be considered "unbiased"?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900829 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:02:27 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900821 said by funchords:

Read the page that you link -- it specifically says that the court found based on the statutory basis alone and avoided the constitutional question brought. Exactly. If the Constitution was amended to allow sampling, that would be fine.
said by funchords:

(Further, the question here has nothing to do with your "any other use" assertion, so your position that it is unconstitutional is not supported by that cite one bit.)
And the Constitution itself does not authorize anything more than an enumeration, or head count. It says nothing about collecting demographic information beyond that. What I don't understand is numerous private companies compile such data. Why should the government duplicate the efforts of private industry?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900821 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:01:01 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900715 said by pnh102:

Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
said by Koil:

You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again.
Because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear about requiring an enumeration, or head count.

The Supreme Court affirmed this as well in 1999:

»www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/199···_98_404/
Read the page that you link -- it specifically says that the court found based on the statutory basis alone and avoided the constitutional question brought.

(Further, the question here has nothing to do with your "any other use" assertion, so your position that it is unconstitutional is not supported by that cite one bit.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900715 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:46:09 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900700 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900700 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:44:04 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900645 said by Koil:

You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again. Because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear about requiring an enumeration, or head count.

The Supreme Court affirmed this as well in 1999:

»www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/199···_98_404/
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900645 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:34:49 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900624 Re: Why not just as a part of the census? as well as the replies to it.

-- Robb (just saving time)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900624 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:32:27 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900540 said by pnh102:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.
Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
said by pnh102:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Have you actually filled out a "full census form" in 2000 or 1990? There were dozens of questions on income, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc.
I refuse to do so. The government only needs to know how many people live in my house and nothing more.
You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again.

Your post makes it appear to be fact, when it most certainly isn't. As of right now, anyway.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900540 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:18:19 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900476 said by birdfeedr:

So how come they ask a lot more than number of and age of people? Marital status, whether I consider myself caucasian or other, what's my family income, and a lot more. Because the Census Bureau is not following the Constitution. Only a mere head count is required. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900476 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:09:32 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900472 said by Buttset:

Census data is supposed to be collected every 10 years for a single purpose. To determine how many Representatives each state would get in the House of Representatives. The only information the government needs to comply with the original intent of the law, is how many people live in a home. Period.

Using the Census data for any other purpose is unconstitutional, not to mention dumb. Haven't we given away too much already?
You can complain it is unconstitutional all you want. But there is nothing you can do about it. If you are adamant about it - don't fill it out. Or sue in Federal court. Good luck with that!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900472 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:08:39 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900470 said by ThrowDemsOut:

Have you actually filled out a "full census form" in 2000 or 1990? There were dozens of questions on income, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc. I refuse to do so. The government only needs to know how many people live in my house and nothing more.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900470 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:08:36 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900454
Using the Census data for any other purpose is unconstitutional, not to mention dumb. Haven't we given away too much already?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900454 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:06:03 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900349 said by pnh102:

Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
So how come they ask a lot more than number of and age of people? Marital status, whether I consider myself caucasian or other, what's my family income, and a lot more.

This is the full form for 2010. »www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/20···book.pdf Full version wants to know about bathroom facilities, among many other seriously detailed things. Since the questions are presented to Congress, it seems reasonable to say it has the force of law. Constitution be damned, just do it, they say.

There's a shorter version that they use for most people, but trust me, it's not only about count.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900349 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:44:21 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900292 said by pnh102:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.
Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
That was the purpose of the census back in the 1800's. Since then it has been turned in to a data mining operation to decide on what gov't programs need to be beefed up. Have you actually filled out a "full census form" in 2000 or 1990? There were dozens of questions on income, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900292 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:34:44 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900231 said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900231 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:25:23 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900210
Perhaps we should re-write the Declaration of Independence to include the words "life, liberty, broadband access, and the pursuit of happiness"

Diatribe aside, I feel your pain. I understand how most, if not all, of the companies provide a service that is deemed too expensive or too restrictive. I've had my own little fights with Comcast and AT&T. I'd love to have more choices, but I *CHOSE* to live where I do for my job. The reality of the situation is that if broadband really matters that much to you, you can relocate yourself to one of those modern day utopias where you get 100MB down.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900210 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:22:37 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900198 said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.

...
I had thought of that also, but the more I thought (oh, another several seconds or so) I realized that's not the answer either.

the reason is so many people DON'T have broadband because they don't want to pay for it of just don't want it period. I could see an issue with census data as indicating an area doesn't have broadband (even if it does) because a lot of people don't know if broadband is available to them or not. There is a potential issue in the other direction with people saying they can get it (whether they have it or not) because they saw a commercial for FIOS on TV and figured they could get it. I keep getting mailers from Verizon offering DSL and "digital" phone, but I have never been able to get DSL and expect I never will.

The way to get this data is from the ISPs themselves. If the govt has to pay them for the cost of assembling and copying the data, that's fine. But the only sure way to get accurate data is from the ISPs. Unless, of course, they lie to the govt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900198 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:20:50 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900181
Remember that there are still questions as to what Broadband really means. If the "experts" are still not on the same page, how do you expect any data from the public to shed light on this?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900181 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:17:39 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900164 said by fatness:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.
You want to limit any useful broadband coverage data to once every 10 yeas?
They do between-census updates of the every 10 years census every year anyway to update info. No reason why the broadband data wouldn't be included in these frequent modifications to the 10 yr census data.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900164 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:13:35 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900145 said by ThrowDemsOut:

Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.
You want to limit any useful broadband coverage data to once every 10 yeas?
--
goodbye dad]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900145 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:10:21 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900087
Build any required questions into the Census. Most people know whom they're paying for service. Screw trying to get real data from the telcos & cablecos...
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900087 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:01:20 EDT Re: Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900057
p.s.>
said by jkeelsnc:

Well the government cannot sometimes be trusted either. But with the new administration things are more transparent than before.
Really? I think not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Not-a-surprise-21900057 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:57:34 EDT Not a surprise http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Not-a-surprise-21900020
Instead, the government should do their own survey of users in every state. The incumbents can argue against it all they want. However, there is no regulation or legal precedent that would stop the federal government from doing this. Specifically, they cannot stop users from complaining and surveying with the government to collect accurate data. Then write off what the incumbents have to say. They have been screwing us all for a long time anyway. They cannot be trusted. Well the government cannot sometimes be trusted either. But with the new administration things are more transparent than before. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, etc can go F&*& themselves.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Not-a-surprise-21900020 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:51:41 EDT