dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to buckweet1980

Re: Jobs

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the private companies are already turning over 'what you do' the the government... very willingly. Are you for that?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by CXM_Splicer:

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the private companies are already turning over 'what you do' the the government... very willingly. Are you for that?

I'd rather have private companies doing it than government stooges.

At least with the former, I can choose not to buy the service, I can choose to invest in their "greedy" ways and reap the dividends, and the private company doesn't have gendarmes collecting their tax at gunpoint.

The data collection that private companies do is primarily intended for marketing exploitation. With today's technology, that means targeted Google ads, and demographically-determined commercials.
I have yet to find any of it objectionable.

buckweet1980

join:2011-12-31
Allen, TX
Bingo.. ATT/VZ, etc just want your money.. If they do something you don't like you can go to another service (sometimes).

What happens if the government starts to offer different services based on political party affiliation? Or any other determining factor they chose. You then have NO choice because what they say is law, whether it's law or not..

China anyone??

TechnoGeek

join:2013-01-07
Actually, you often cannot go to another service. Are you even paying attention to the article? That is the whole problem!

I have no problem with the government setting up service in an area where private providers refuse to provide usable service. After all, that is actually one of the government's original purposes: to provide public goods (roads, etc) that would not be feasible for a private agency to provide.

There is no public-private competition to speak of in that case.

As for all of the bad things you are saying, I fail to see how that would be any different from what a private company would do.

If the government started to offer services by political party, I think we would have a lot more serious things to worry about that an internet connection.

buckweet1980

join:2011-12-31
Allen, TX
They may have no other 'WIRED' services, but I refuse to believe that Sprint, Verizon, ATT or whomever has cell internet services there don't have 3g/4g services available. And there are satellite options as well.

My dad has NO access to wired services, but he can get all 3 carriers 3G services and VZW 4G LTE services. I just purchased the Verizon HomeFusion service for him for xmas and he is in heaven. Wired services are the best no question about it, but wireless does work and offers a viable alternative.

I don't agree with a law outlawing community broadband options, but IMHO if they want a community option then they should take their own dollars and form a private company to offer those services. It should not be tax dollar funded or subsidized by other tax payers in the state. Not everyone will want this, so why should tax payers who don't want it pay for it?

If we could trust the government to do what is right, then I wouldn't have any problem either. But time after time they've proven they can't. Government services always come in way over budget and late because they have no one to answer to. They'll ultimately tax you more and more for outdated services.

Didn't the city of Seattle have some public run ISP services/project that was dismantled because it cost too much to operate?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to elray
You can also choose to move to a community that doesn't monitor its users; vote with your residency! Or simply choose not to use a service your taxes pay for. How many of these agencies (that you help pay for) have you used?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un···agencies

What you guys are missing is that this has nothing to do with advertising... the government stooges ARE ALREADY MONITORING your activity thanks to the corporate stooges selling out. It is exactly what Buckweet seemed to fear might happen.

I disagree with Buckweet's postulation that LOCAL government would start monitoring you at all. The Feds certainly would want to (since they are doing it now) but they would need to pass a law if it were controlled at the local level. If anything, this would be a hindrance to the telco provided legal work-around.

I would much rather have a hand in the decision making process with my vote and the ability to elect the Internet czar rather than have no say at all with the profiteers we have now. I am all for community Internet funded by Elray's and my tax dollars

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to buckweet1980
said by buckweet1980:

They may have no other 'WIRED' services, but I refuse to believe that Sprint, Verizon, ATT or whomever has cell internet services there don't have 3g/4g services available. And there are satellite options as well.

Those are not options.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to elray
said by elray:

I'd rather have private companies doing it than government stooges.

Don't worry, we've got the worst of both. Private companies in full partnership with the Government. Quid Pro Quo.

Love this cartoon...

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-34Iyz7EYk

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
reply to buckweet1980
Communism - Basically when government controls what the citizens chooses in life.

If dictatorship is added on top, expect it to worsen.

But Communism isn't all bad, it's only because most government in the world tends to corrupt.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to TechnoGeek
It isn't private providers "refusing to provide usable service".
Its the unwillingness of the consumer to pay for "usable service" that prevent its deployment. Until the cost of providing the service matches up with what the locals are willing to pay, you won't see more of it.

Forcing your neighbors to subsidize your service through the tax base is simply wrong.