Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR
1 edit | Harsh assessment
That's an extremely harsh assessment of the Heartland Institute. They attempt to cut through the politically correct, socialist agendas that politicians and bureaucrats are continually shoving down our throats and tell the truth for a change. It isn't politically correct to say that taxpayers shouldn't pay for FTTH for everyone in the country. It isn't politically correct to say that broadband isn't a right in this country, it isn't politically correct to say that people need to work for the things they want rather than expect things to be handed to them by others. The final cost of taxpayer supported broadband will be astronomical by the time government gets through with it, and no matter what they tell you, broadband is not a necessity. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Utter nonsense.
These groups exist with one purpose: protecting their master's profit margins, and convincing consumers that it's good for them. |
|
11337845
Live free or die
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Seattle, WA
| reply to Goldman
Take your argument, travel back in time about 100 years, and proceed to say the same thing about telephone service.
Then look at how far this country came and how we became a pre-eminent superpower because of our advancements in technology. Our so-called "socialist" approach to telephone service enabled this country to dominate the world.
We were able to advance our society in a way never seen throughout history. The advent of the telephone, and our attitude towards making sure that almost everyone had access to it (monetarily and physically), is probably the primary reason we're not under Hitler's control at the moment (or his successor).
Believe it or not, internet access is the "new" telephone and needs to be treated as a necessity for our citizens. We cannot advance as a society and an industrial nation if we continue to fall behind other countries in broadband deployment and accessibility.
It's not just about porn and movies and music. That's a significant amount of the traffic, but we'll fall as a nation if we don't address this important problem.
--
Join me and those that think as I do. Revolt against the powers that be. Tell them that they are hypocrites. Let them know that their control is weak and pointless. Urge them to let us evolve into our own society and flourish as we should. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Goldman
the corperations are also scared of having to compete, look at that article further down where a cable co had to offer cheaper services because the town had its own triple play. Competition isnt compatable with the monopolies that the execs of these companies are used to.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| reply to Goldman
Communism is everywhere on broadband, keep your eyes open. 
--
Capitalist surrendered to me, the bad left winger.  Victory is mine! |
|
jsinaiko
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| LOL  Best I've seen yet! I bet the Heartland Inst. idiots believe it too.
I still think it's ironic that this bunch of numb-nuts is in Chicago, the bluest of blue cities in a very blue states.
These guys never quit - they just keep on spewing out their horsedooky.
--
Illigitimati non carborundum |
|
Shadye
Premium
join:2004-10-21
Fallbrook, CA
| reply to 11337845
So you're saying that it's impossible for a free market to take on large projects? I doubt telephone service to nowhere, USA caused us to defeat the germans through industrial output. And you can't say that private venture would not have worked to connect LA & NYC, etc.
I guess this is just a larger argument of freedom vs state run (authortarian).
While I don't think government broadband is a good idea, I really don't like the idea of state government telling muni government they cannot deploy FTTH. |
|
11337845
Live free or die
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Seattle, WA
| My statement is completely rhetorical and based on no study whatsoever. Regardless, logic dictates that I'm right.
Is it chance that the original country that socialized "utilities" like telephone service, water, electricity, etc. became the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world?
It's like increasing your chances in the lottery. If only 10% of our citizens have every advanced technology at their disposal, the amount of people that will excel and help this country grow will be low. If we make sure that 90% of our citizens have those same things, we just created 9 times as many geniuses that can capitalize on their God-given talent.
The telephone could've been invented before Bell came along. In fact, I believe that Benjamin Franklin had the genius that would have allowed him to do so. So then, why did he not? Because he simply didn't have the resources available to make that discovery first.
When you really think about this, it'll f*ck with your head. 
--
Join me and those that think as I do. Revolt against the powers that be. Tell them that they are hypocrites. Let them know that their control is weak and pointless. Urge them to let us evolve into our own society and flourish as we should. |
|
gilgamesh0
join:2003-12-01
Seattle, WA
| reply to Minister
Jeez, guys. Went and had a look at this think tank's site about their funding, etc.:
»www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10582
»www.heartland.org/FAQArticle.cfm?faqId=7
Doesn't look any worse than most policy think tanks (sounds like they were more open than most in the past)... At any rate, this sort of criticism doesn't begin to cut it. How about focusing on the actual study in question, instead of this "corporate shill" (or "government shill", in other cases) nonsense? Unless there is specific evidence of bias, this kind of accusation invariably detracts from the conversation, rather than assists it. While I've seen the righties do this, too, I have to say that this seems to be more the lefties' favorite game, and it is pretty sad.
Moreover, even if a study is indeed an *industry* study (or industry commissioned) -- i.e. one where clearly the funders have a monetary interest -- you note that fact, certainly, but it is not ipso facto bogus, and simply dismissible because of that. I love how independent orgs (lefty or righty "public interest" groups) claim their studies to be pure, because they have no monetary bias -- but somehow their ideological perspective (the very reason for their existence) has no effect on this "purity"? On the contrary, I'd say the ideological commitment can have an even stronger effect.
From what I can see, this Heartland Insititute has in fact more of an ideological motivation than financial. And that is not per se a reason to dismiss their study out of hand (any more than for of any of these other groups). Let's focus on evaluating the actual study, folks, shall we?
--Adam |
|
11337845
Live free or die
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Seattle, WA
| said by gilgamesh0  :I love how independent orgs (lefty or righty "public interest" groups) claim their studies to be pure, because they have no monetary bias -- but somehow their ideological perspective (the very reason for their existence) has no effect on this "purity"? On the contrary, I'd say the ideological commitment can have an even stronger effect. In a country whose God is money, you will see the evidence mount. Congratulations on an excellent and thought provoking observation.
--
Join me and those that think as I do. Revolt against the powers that be. Tell them that they are hypocrites. Let them know that their control is weak and pointless. Urge them to let us evolve into our own society and flourish as we should. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to Corvus
Might as well be accurate...
--
A is A |
|
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| said by John Galt :Might as well be accurate... Haha good job!
--
Capitalist surrendered to me, the bad left winger. Victory is mine! |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to gilgamesh0
People don't seem to understand that it's hard to get funding from someone who doesn't agree with you or has a vested interest in something you oppose; so it should come as no surprise where the funding comes from, nor should it be taken as an absolute sign of bias because of it.
I've got a big surprise for everyone, you'll find that most private donors to a particular political candidate come from individuals of that candidates same party; i know it's hard to believe, but its true.
--
Dear Hollywood:Shut up and dance monkey! |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to 11337845
said by 11337845 :My statement is completely rhetorical and based on no study whatsoever. Regardless, logic dictates that I'm right. I'm sorry but the above statement is utterly ridiculous. Ignoring the fact that nations that have socialistic policies also have:
-dramatically lower per capita output
-dramatically lower per unit resource cost of production
-dramatically lower standards of living (as a result of the inefficiency)
is not logical proof that you're right.
Just because we're doing good does not mean that we couldn't be doing better if we had done the pure free market thing.
--
Dear Hollywood:Shut up and dance monkey! |
|
11337845
Live free or die
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Seattle, WA
| Congratulations on rolling my argument into a be-all-end-all way of doing things. That's the complete opposite of what I was saying. If anything, I'm Libertarian.
However, the fact that a large part of our population had "access" to advanced technology before many citizens other countries gave us a leg-up.
Due to the nature of the beast (landline telecommunications), it's inconceivable that multiple companies could've created multiple networks that interacted with eachother nicely to create the competition you speak of. Our phone network, from the very beginning, was a socialist government controlled monopoly.
Yes, I believe that it could've eventually become an every-day thing for people as it is now. The point is that, in the free market and during its infancy, telephone service was cost-prohibitive for ordinary folks. Ask anyone from England when they got phone service. I know someone who grew up there in the 70's and she relayed to me that a home telephone was not commonplace there and still quite expensive.
Anyway, my main point is that in this particular instance, a socialistic attitude and approach allowed us to move faster (technology wise) than any other culture or country around the planet. There are times when we should be individuals, and times when we should come together as a group. The important thing is to know when it's appropriate and when it's not. You know, a happy medium.
--
Join me and those that think as I do. Revolt against the powers that be. Tell them that they are hypocrites. Let them know that their control is weak and pointless. Urge them to let us evolve into our own society and flourish as we should. |
|
Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR
| said by 11337845 :If anything, I'm Libertarian. I guess that would be the socialist wing of the party.
Most people in the U.S. have telephone access. Almost that same number have access to dialup internet. So what is the huge problem? Why create a huge government money pit to move 1's and 0's a little faster. It makes no sense.
Look at the money pit that IS taxpayer-funded public schools. Don't you think being 24th in the world in math literacy is going to hold us back in technology? Government is NOT the answer to all of our perceived problems. Don't they teach that in "Libertarian School" anymore?
Math Literacy Rankings 2004
Source: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
1 Finland
2 South Korea
3 Netherlands
4 Japan
5 Canada
6 Belgium
7 Switzerland
8 New Zealand
9 Australia
10 Czech Republic
11 Iceland
12 Denmark
13 France
14 Sweden
15 Austria
16 Germany
17 Ireland
18 Slovak Republic
19 Norway
20 Luxembourg
21 Poland
22 Hungary
23 Spain
24 United States
25 Portugal
26 Italy
27 Greece
28 Turkey
29 Mexico |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to 11337845
said by 11337845 :Due to the nature of the beast (landline telecommunications), it's inconceivable that multiple companies could've created multiple networks that interacted with eachother nicely to create the competition you speak of. Wrong. All it would have taken was reasonable regulation of interconnection, a simpler task then than when we finally did it for long distance in the 1980's and for local in the 1990's.
Instead, the government handed it all over to Theodore Vail, who by your account was single-handedly responsible for winning World War II. Ha.
said by 11337845 :Ask anyone from England when they got phone service. I know someone who grew up there in the 70's and she relayed to me that a home telephone was not commonplace there and still quite expensive. Well, let's see. England is far more socialist than the US--they had the Post Office run their telecoms, and they had socialist health care and railroads. So if they did such a lousy job with telecom, why are you saying socialist telecom is a good thing?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
11337845
Live free or die
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Seattle, WA
| I'm not saying everything should be socialist. I'm saying that certain things are better distributed under a socialist system rather than capitalism. Unfortunately, the world is not "one size fits all."
For all things that are "luxuries," I believe capitalism is the better system.
--
Join me and those that think as I do. Revolt against the powers that be. Tell them that they are hypocrites. Let them know that their control is weak and pointless. Urge them to let us evolve into our own society and flourish as we should. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to gilgamesh0
They don't reveal their funding sources, because their funding sources are the very people who don't want muni-broadband to thrive.
I'll take any study from a real independent research seriously and consume it.
Taking these individuals seriously from the start is a grave error, they have but one agenda, and it is to protect their profits.....
Even considering their studies is a sign one considers them legitimate researchers, which I will not do. Spend five minutes studying Issue Dynamics and realize how deep this rabbit hole goes.... |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to 11337845
said by 11337845 :I'm saying that certain things are better distributed under a socialist system rather than capitalism. Go read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, then think about what could have been.
--
Dear Hollywood:Shut up and dance monkey! |
|
