dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
21
share rss forum feed
« Don't confuse me with the facts.
This is a sub-selection from rly?


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

Re: rly?

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.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
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.


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

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
said by pnh102:

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?

Can you prove that the same reasoning didn't apply when societies faced the perplexing question of whether to build water, sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc?

Obviously, it is my opinion that it would have been much better to do this in 2007 when there was more tax revenue to fund it. We'd also be that much closer to obtaining the benefits.

Your position is that we shouldn't have done it then either.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
said by pnh102:

Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.

Ditto. I've explained how broadband is ubiquitous and a necessary component to life, the economy, etc. Like water, sewer, roads, etc., it is not well served by leaving it to so-called "free-market" forces.

Your response is "well, you must want government to do everything."

When I turn that around on you, to show how you enjoy a lot of things which the government does, and obviously don't want the government to do nothing you claim that I've changed the subject.

I guess we'll have to let viewers form their own opinions about the merit of each of our arguments. I appreciate having the opportunity to show yours for what I believe they are.


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

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?

This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"???

It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason.
--
Say no to JAMS!


srsly

@sdsc.edu
reply to pnh102
So, just for the sake of clarity, you feel it is the roll of each state to dictate how municipalities spend their local tax revenues as well as limiting the scope of bond initiatives? Does this idea scale and does it match your ideology, at scale?


FireJack

@bellsouth.net
reply to pnh102
you have tried to lead this discussion in a useless direction

the argument here should not be about whether local communities can decide to run infrastructure. that is up to them, not you.
worry about your own community, not someone else's.

the constructive argument here is why corporations are suing to maintain their control and whether they should be able to dictate how a community wants to run itself.

it doesnt matter if the local govt will run it poorly. it is completely beside the point.

what matters is that the people can choose for themselves and corporations not being able to tell an entire community what they can and cant do by using the corrupt political and justice system.

your argumentative red herring has no bearing on anything at all except to distract from the real issue.


Real Patriot

@charter.com
reply to pnh102
With your reasoning, ANY RURAL AREA WHERE IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY TO RUN AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE, THE POPULATION CAN JUST GET BENT.....Man I will be so glad when you and your kind are relegated to the scrap heap of history...


JakCrow

join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

1 recommendation

reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:

said by pnh102:

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?

This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"???

It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason.

And why is a state government shilling for and passing a law for the benefit of less than a handful of private corporations? Why aren't these corporations competing on their own merits? Talk about no "free market".

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.

Your assertion is laughable. You've provided no facts whatsoever. All of it is opinion based on a "I have mine, screw you!" belief system. Your hypocrisy is unbelievably transparent when you whine about AT&T's rising prices and how government should step in to prevent them from gouging customers- because you're an AT&T customer.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to Real Patriot
The town fiber projects end at the city limits in most cases which means someone on the other side of the line will not get service until they are taken in to the city. This means the farther out you are the less likely you will get Fiber.
The reason the Phone and Power worked is the government required you to serve everybody in return for a monopoly. When that was removed from the phone system service got worse because other companies came in and took the best business customers and communities and left the low return areas to the old phone company. Just look at New England when Verizon dumped them the new company went down the tubes. Verizon's service may not have been great service but but when you remove the big cities where they make a bundle it pays for the areas like the states they dropped.
I give you two cases. My family lived in a town that was served by an independent telco own 4 party line cost more then a Southern Bell single party line one mile away. The service was awful.
Case 2 after the monopoly was dropped another phone company next to the same BellSouth city started paying developers to allow them to provide service to the new sub development. The residents that bought the homes were not happy campers when they found out they could not get a BellSouth account. Anybody they called outside those serviced by the other company was long distance.
The reason the old Bell System was so good was Long Distance paid a lot of bills. When they lost LD with the breakup a lot of the advances stopped and they have just treaded water. Just like today Wireless pays a lot of the bills for the landlines that many customers are dropping but they are still required to support that one last customer.

If a city sets up the Fiber network like it was a private business with no favoritism on building sharing and the network had to pay the same taxes. The Wilson Network uses government office space, and the city power company service trucks plus no taxes. If you tried to build a private network you would not get that kind of help.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
said by WhatNow:

The reason the Phone and Power worked is the government required you to serve everybody in return for a monopoly. When that was removed from the phone system service got worse because other companies came in and took the best business customers and communities and left the low return areas to the old phone company.

Better for some, worse for others. It's like the argument to deregulate first-class mail. If a private company doesn't have to provide service to a small rural community (or high-risk urban ghetto), that's a savings they can pass on to the cherry-picked service areas.

That's why treating this topic like it's a "free-market" is absurd. There are many things that we do which impact some negatively for the good of all. Healthcare is a good example. We criminalize lessor healthcare solutions, impacting lower-income people (even endangering their lives) for the sake of uniformity and more predictability. Seriously, how would a doctor with only 7 years and 8 months of education endanger someone compared to that person going without treatment because they can't afford it?

Consider zoning laws. Your neighbor can't enjoy her own private property any way she wishes because the mere *possibility* that she might convert her home into a late-night biker bar would require you to purchase enough property to provide for your own enjoyment of your own property without limiting your neighbor's enjoyment of hers.

We're not just individuals. We're a group with shared interests. The internet has reached a level of ubiquity that creates shared interests. It's so ubiquitous that, to save money, "we" stopped mailing IRS forms to everyone. "We" require people to file unemployment online. "We" require people to apply for jobs online.

We've reached the point that you can't function without the internet unless you're willing to spend time traveling to the library, waiting in line, and perhaps subjecting your confidential information to a keyboard logger.

If it were 10 years ago, I could understand concerns with cities owning internet infrastructure. I believe in another 10 years it's going to look retarded that they don't.

Papageno

join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR
reply to amigo_boy
The main problem all U.S. governments are facing (federal, state and local) for the last 20-30 years is that the religion of "tax cuts as panacea" has taken hold. If government services and subsidies that most people want (and believe government should provide) need to be slashed, that's too bad, it's more important that Bradley Moneybucks III be able to buy a couple of extra sports cars/jetskis/vacation homes per year than that government be funded properly so it can maintain services and infrastructure for everyone's use.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
said by Papageno:

it's more important that Bradley Moneybucks III be able to buy a couple of extra sports cars/jetskis/vacation homes per year than that government be funded properly so it can maintain services and infrastructure for everyone's use.

It's starting to remind me of Mexico. The so-called "haves" didn't feel collective allegiance to their fellow citizens. "I got mine, screw everyone else." They controlled government to preserve huge disparity in wealth and income. The result is apathy among the general population.

One of the wealthy will be kidnapped, and the police are in on it to some extent. They general population will know something about who did it, where the wealthy guy is stashed away. But, they don't say anything. The system doesn't exist for their benefit, why should they put their neck on the line?

It's gotten so bad that the wealthy are moving to the US. (You can obtain an immigration visa if you have enough assets.). They'll work the same magic here. There's already a substantial "I've got mine, screw everyone else" sentiment here (as evidenced by America's wealth/income disparity growing over the past 30 years to the point we're close to Mexico's.).

What's remarkable to me is that the people who protest the loudest about "socialism," and "tax increases" have little chance of earning more than $100k. It's like they're defending the top 1/10th percent of society who have quadrupled their incomes over the past 30 years of deregulatory politics -- as the lower 50% of American's income lost ground.

It's like the 5% of Black Louisianans who voted for David Duke (former KKK grand wizard). I don't get it.