dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6369
share rss forum feed

ToiletMint

join:2009-12-07
Pine River, MN

rly?

Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by ToiletMint:

Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?

No, but 15 Dems voted yes.
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/v···&RCS=155
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

reply to ToiletMint

said by ToiletMint:

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it. No one is stopping anyone from investing their own private funds into a private venture to provide broadband to an unserved area.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.
Expand your moderator at work

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to pnh102

Re: rly?

said by pnh102:

said by ToiletMint:

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it.

We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System. Why should we do it now?

Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System. Why should we do it now?

Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

1 recommendation

I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

said by talz13:

I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

Ok, that explains the public funding aspect. Thanks for the explanation!


jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC
reply to ToiletMint

Well, first and foremost the local media have not given it any coverage at all. Also, not even the local PBS network (UNC TV) has given it any real coverage in their weekly legislative coverage of the general assembly. The whole thing has been swept under the rug and purposefully avoided.

Actually, it aggravates me. I wrote bothh my local state house representative and local state senator and have not had a peep from either one on this issue. Not even an acknowledgment that I wrote them.

I think its time to topple the government and institute rules that make it illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians campaigns and also to make it illegal for corporations (alone) to lobby politicians. One small piece of the puzzle is the fact that corporations are now given the legal status of an individual. This is all BS.

Government only works for itself and for those who give the politicians the big money. I try to make a difference by voting, by reading legislative news, by occasionally writing representatives, etc. Nothing makes a difference or matters to them anymore.

They all need to be kicked out and replaced with people that care and then limited by law to not being able to receive any kind of private campaign donations (only receive a public fund for the campaign and anything else should be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence).


jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC
reply to ToiletMint

Well, first and foremost the local media have not given it any coverage at all. Also, not even the local PBS network (UNC TV) has given it any real coverage in their weekly legislative coverage of the general assembly. The whole thing has been swept under the rug and purposefully avoided.

Actually, it aggravates me. I wrote both my local state house representative and local state senator and have not had a peep from either one on this issue. Not even an acknowledgment that I wrote them.

I think its time to topple the government and institute rules that make it illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians campaigns and also to make it illegal for corporations (alone) to lobby politicians. One small piece of the puzzle is the fact that corporations are now given the legal status of an individual. This is all BS.

Government only works for itself and for those who give the politicians the big money. I try to make a difference by voting, by reading legislative news, by occasionally writing representatives, etc. Nothing makes a difference or matters to them anymore.

They all need to be kicked out and replaced with people that care and then limited by law to not being able to receive any kind of private campaign donations (only receive a public fund for the campaign and anything else should be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence).


extreme50
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it. No one is stopping anyone from investing their own private funds into a private venture to provide broadband to an unserved area.

Or maybe we could use some of Joe Sixpack's tax dollars that were used to bail out the private capitalists that were too big to fail?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

In this case, it's not an extreme. It's a long-term infrastructure investment which, if left to the private market, tends to become a monopoly. Which is what would have happened if interstate highways had been held to the same standard.

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose.

Obviously that's not its primary purpose. Given how auto manufacturers lobbied for passage of the Interstate Highway Act, and how the interstate highways are used for private purposes, it has a much larger private purpose.

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle. For example, moving telecom out of the analog era, freeing up resources to be used for new technologies, redeploying taxes and fees (as well as finite radio spectrum).

It's still not clear why broadband shouldn't be viewed as a long-term infrastructure investment like highways, sewer, water, telephone and electric.

Those latter two items you'll say are private business. But, even those are public utilities. Subject to far more social oversight and planning than a typical investor-motivated business.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose.

Obviously that's not its primary purpose.

...

So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.
said by amigo_boy:

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to extreme50

said by extreme50:

Or maybe we could use some of Joe Sixpack's tax dollars that were used to bail out the private capitalists that were too big to fail?

That's right, because I was suggesting we should do this. /s
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.

You'll say the latter three were private business not backed by taxpayer bonds. But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.

Broadband would continue to have a similar tangential defense function.

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?

Yes. Moving people away from legacy telecom redeploys taxes/fees to other areas which compete with defense spending. Delivering broadcast entertainment over broadband frees up airwaves which could be used by defense and early responders.

You're not seeing the same tangential relationship as the Interstate Highway Act ('50s and '60s) because you've accepted the IHA as "the new baseline." But, everything else... "no, no! it's socialism!"


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply to jkeelsnc

All you have to do is remove corporate "personhood" by a law or Constitutional amendment ( the courts won't reverse the decision ) and you're golden.
But no one really thinks much about this - they immediately reject the idea in typical leg-slap fashion.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

said by pnh102:

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.

You're absolutely right. We've see in many situations where these services were provided by the government that the "borrow now, reborrow later" approach taken by many state and local and local governments has come back to haunt taxpayers. Many states, such as Illinois and California, have used this approach for decades to fund public works and now their residents are being screwed with higher taxes simply to pay the interest on bonds that were used to finance public works projects undertaken years ago.
said by amigo_boy:

But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.

At the very least a person who feels that rates are too high can tell a provider they've had enough and are no longer willing to pay for the service. This cannot happen with a government-funded project.
said by amigo_boy:

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?

Yes, I think many would support that.

But, we have to be clear. It's not a "free market" solution. We're giving a monopoly to a business. We would just go further and recognize it is a monopoly and control its capital expenditures to ensure they serve society's interests, review its operating expenses to ensure they aren't excessive, and set rates so an appropriate "profit" is made.

Similar to society funding and building the infrastructure (and having trouble repaying bonds), this heavily socialized business could have the same problem and raise rates.

We're not talking about something vastly different. With a public utility, we just give the illusion that it's a business and we kept government small. In reality, society became a controlling partner with business.

But, I think that would address most of what people are clamoring for.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.

Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?

As you enjoy just about everything done by government to various degrees?


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?

Yes, we should they do in Somalia.

The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services.

Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

2 recommendations

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?

Yes, we should they do in Somalia.

Don't blame me for your logic. You were the one who introduced the reasoning that government should do everything because all services must be the same. (An attempt to evade the topic, which involves how not all services are the same.).

said by pnh102:

The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services.

The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.

said by pnh102:

Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea?

I think it is. As I said, it could redeploy taxes and fees to new technologies that advance productivity and economic output. Redeploy labor to more economic jobs (and consumption habits). Release airwaves for more economically valuable use.

Similar to how the Interstate Highway Act facilitated more economic activities -- than people traveling on two-lane highways.

You'll argue that playing WoW isn't an economic activity. I'll point out how family vacations aren't either. But, they are part of a larger shift in consumption habits that are enabled by more economic infrastructure.

The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure. Pointing to budget problems may be looking at the symptom and ignoring the cause. Like walking into the home of a diabetic, seeing insulin, and concluding insulin causes diabetes.

There are boxes. And there are those who think inside, and outside.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.

And as we're seeing with the current fiscal mess in which most governments find themselves, this is absolutely a true statement of fact. Adding more responsibilities to government will only exacerbate this fiscal mess.

If you want to continue arguing against reality, by all means, go for it. It won't make your arguments any less invalid.
said by amigo_boy:

The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure.

What are you talking about? We just borrowed and spent nearly $1 trillion in federal funds to supposedly build out new roads, highways, bridges and other things. If this argument was sound, our economy would be in a very strong recovery now.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by extreme50:

Or maybe we could use some of Joe Sixpack's tax dollars that were used to bail out the private capitalists that were too big to fail?

That's right, because I was suggesting we should do this. /s

You are actually pointing out tax payers having to pay for something they don't want or need or have any say in. You describe it as something that should be 100% agreed upon by the tax paying public which in reality applies to absolutely nothing. Life in the USA is all about waste these days. You don't buy knowing it will last forever you buy knowing you'll replace it soon or always have new-shiny for $xxx per month. The cost of complex items is based on it's impact on new versions of the same item making it sometimes cheaper to destroy or allow the old to fail early so as to not reduce the sales of later items. It's all the rage to milk the consumer with leases and rentals and to deny them that power that comes with outright owning things. It's a capitalists dream come true.

You vote, there is a majority, they rule, they change their mind, they get influenced by wealthy contributors, you live with the results. Municipal broadband can create an investment for a group or community that can provide better service at reduced rates that strictly focuses on one geographic area by those people who know that area best. It doesn't cost joe-taxpayer any more than any other variable in life unless they are the competition.
--
Say no to JAMS!

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.

And as we're seeing with the current fiscal mess in which most governments find themselves, this is absolutely a true statement of fact.

Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone?

Do you have any idea what the economy would have been like if we lived in your perfect world?

Welcome to the irrelevant fringe (again).

said by pnh102:

What are you talking about? We just borrowed and spent nearly $1 trillion in federal funds to supposedly build out new roads, highways, bridges and other things. If this argument was sound, our economy would be in a very strong recovery now.

(Chuckle). Bonds are normally 30 years for a reason. Long-term capital expenditures have long-term pay back. They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to firephoto

said by firephoto:

You vote, there is a majority, they rule, they change their mind, they get influenced by wealthy contributors, you live with the results.

I think it's more like, "he enjoys the SEC, banking regulation, food and drug quality laws, zoning laws and building codes, and is probably speeding down the interstate highway as I type this posting."

But, when it comes to something else,.... "hey! you're looting the system with all these handouts you expect!"


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone?

Did I?

I love how you always change the subject when you lose an argument. It is cute.

Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?

said by amigo_boy:

They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results.

Shrug. I guess we need to borrow and spend $2 trillion then. Maybe even $10 trillion. That will get the economy going again.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

I think it's more like, "he enjoys the SEC, banking regulation, food and drug quality laws, zoning laws and building codes, and is probably speeding down the interstate highway as I type this posting."

Ok you sold me on it. We should have the government simply do everything.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.