 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | No Policy Needed We don't need a "National Broadband Policy" but not because of anything that Discovery Institute says.
We've had robust growth and deployment of broadband in most areas of the country in the past 10 years, almost all of which was a result of private sector investment. All of this was done without the involvement of the federal government. These deployments continue to this day again without any involvement from the federal government.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | I agree , the current goverment wants to spend all the money it can, Three is no need for a broad band policy. There needs to be a Spending Reduction policy. |
|
|
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:We don't need a "National Broadband Policy" but not because of anything that Discovery Institute says. We've had robust growth and deployment of broadband in most areas of the country in the past 10 years, almost all of which was a result of private sector investment. All of this was done without the involvement of the federal government. These deployments continue to this day again without any involvement from the federal government. Yes, we have had robust deployment ... of 10 year old technology. It's time the government stepped in and either forced the private sector to deploy the latest technology or do it themselves. Otherwise we face becoming a technology backwater country as the vast majority of broadband available is not adequate and needs to be advanced at a rate that maintains pace (or exceeds) other countries. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:We don't need a "National Broadband Policy" but not because of anything that Discovery Institute says. We've had robust growth and deployment of broadband in most areas of the country in the past 10 years, almost all of which was a result of private sector investment. All of this was done without the involvement of the federal government. These deployments continue to this day again without any involvement from the federal government. We do need regulation to keep the internet fair, neutral, and unlimited.
The problem is ISPs also sell TV and phone services which means they will cripple the internet connections they have through monopolies and duopolies to protect the TV and phone services they sell.
We either need regulation or force all ISPs to not sell any other service that could encourage them to limit their internet connections for protection.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Matt
said by Matt:Yes, we have had robust deployment ... of 10 year old technology. FIOS is 10 years old? Even cable modem speeds and traditional DSL speeds are increasing. The end user doesn't care what the technology is on the other end of the connection as long as it works as he or she expects it to work.
said by Matt: It's time the government stepped in and either forced the private sector to deploy the latest technology or do it themselves. The feds did this with ethanol. Have you seen what's happened to the price of anything made with corn lately? We're about to see the same thing happen with wind and solar power. All of these are pie-in-the-sky fantasyland technologies that are only "cheap" when the proven solutions that they are intented to replace are expensive.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to r81984
said by r81984:We do need regulation to keep the internet fair, neutral, and unlimited. Agreed. But this isn't really a "policy" as described in the article, it is more of the government acting in its existing enforcement capacity.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Matt:Yes, we have had robust deployment ... of 10 year old technology. FIOS is 10 years old? Even cable modem speeds and traditional DSL speeds are increasing. The end user doesn't care what the technology is on the other end of the connection as long as it works as he or she expects it to work. said by Matt: It's time the government stepped in and either forced the private sector to deploy the latest technology or do it themselves. The feds did this with ethanol. Have you seen what's happened to the price of anything made with corn lately? We're about to see the same thing happen with wind and solar power. All of these are pie-in-the-sky fantasyland technologies that are only "cheap" when the proven solutions that they are intented to replace are expensive. Aside from FiOS and surgical DOCSIS 3.0 deployments, yes, we're dealing with 10-year old technology. AT&T is milking DSL and Time Warner is still DOCSIS 1.1.
I have no idea about your corn analogy, but I doubt it's even remotely similar. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | At least they are doing VDSL in some places, I think they should switch to VSDL2, but still it beats nothing. |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | reply to pnh102
Without a national broadband policy what exactly would they be enforcing? |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Matt
said by Matt:Aside from FiOS and surgical DOCSIS 3.0 deployments, yes, we're dealing with 10-year old technology. AT&T is milking DSL and Time Warner is still DOCSIS 1.1. And why are these bad things? There is absolutely nothing wrong with milking an existing technology to its usable limits.
said by Matt:I have no idea about your corn analogy, but I doubt it's even remotely similar. Ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel exists because the US government decided that it should. It costs much more to make than ordinary gasoline and is less powerful. Because it also requires a lot of corn to produce, it raises demand, and therefore the price, of corn and anything else made with corn.
I mention it because any government-mandated standard for broadband will have the same result. My guess is that a lot of smaller ISPs will simply throw in the towel because they won't be able to deploy to mandated standards, and the bigger ISPs will simply buy themselves protections in any standard that is mandated.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Talis
said by Talis:Without a national broadband policy what exactly would they be enforcing? There hasn't been any national broadband policy regarding deployment and service levels and yet government at all levels has been able to enforce existing net neutrality laws. I am simply arguing that a new policy that mandates deployment and service levels is not needed because private ISPs continue to expand services.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Matt:Aside from FiOS and surgical DOCSIS 3.0 deployments, yes, we're dealing with 10-year old technology. AT&T is milking DSL and Time Warner is still DOCSIS 1.1. And why are these bad things? There is absolutely nothing wrong with milking an existing technology to its usable limits. said by Matt:I have no idea about your corn analogy, but I doubt it's even remotely similar. Ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel exists because the US government decided that it should. It costs much more to make than ordinary gasoline and is less powerful. Because it also requires a lot of corn to produce, it raises demand, and therefore the price, of corn and anything else made with corn. I mention it because any government-mandated standard for broadband will have the same result. My guess is that a lot of smaller ISPs will simply throw in the towel because they won't be able to deploy to mandated standards, and the bigger ISPs will simply buy themselves protections in any standard that is mandated. Ethanol is not the ubiquitous fuel. So that analogy doesn't mean much to me. If the government decided to subsidize corn farmers even further by requiring ethanol, so what? They mix it with gasoline here in NC in the winter months to reduce emissions. So there is a use for other than usage as a lone fuel.
And you're right about milking a technology to its usable limits. We passed the limit of DOCSIS 1.1 and DSL years ago. That's why we're right above Estonia (I think) in broadband price per megabit while other industrialized nations are enjoying super-fast internet connections for less than we pay for a couple mbps. |
|
| reply to pnh102
I'm not sure why I'm replying to your comments, since you've demonstrated your blind bias over and over again, but..
Countries like Canada and Australia have demonstrated what happens when a government blindly pursues deregulation in an industry with no plan. The countries have become backwaters in terms of broadband. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by sonicmerlin:I'm not sure why I'm replying to your comments ... You're hoping to experience stopped clock syndrome I would imagine.
said by sonicmerlin:Countries like Canada and Australia have demonstrated what happens when a government blindly pursues deregulation in an industry with no plan. The countries have become backwaters in terms of broadband. LOL.
Australia? If I recall correctly their federal government is quite involved in the planning and control of the Internet as it is deployed in that country. We all know what a disaster that is turning out to be.
As for Canada, the only problem there is that there is too much regulation and once again, connectivity is governed by just one single company. Said company is choking off wholesale access to other ISPs.
Why would you want the same things to happen to Internet service in the USA?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel exists because the US government decided that it should. It costs much more to make than ordinary gasoline and is less powerful. Ok Off topic but I need to comment here.
Ethanol's existed well before the US Govt decided to get behind it. It does use more energy to create in the form we make it today, but that does not have to be the case.
By the way, ethanol is NOT less powerful than gasoline. That's pure fabrication, just ask the folks who outfitted a Z06 to run ethanol as the pace car for the Indy 500 or perhaps the Corvette team in ALMS who's run ethanol for several years now. At least for the pace car, they got more HP out of the ethanol conversion, and that's coming from the Vette engineers directly.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. |
|
