dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2937
share rss forum feed


Brownbay
Premium
join:2005-03-13
North York, ON

1 edit

1 recommendation

A Right!

My vote goes for it being a RIGHT/UTILITY... especially in this day and age when so many things depend on it.
--
You can make Time wait... Just don't count it.



ylen131

join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA

luxury, person can survive with out it



JRW2
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

said by ylen131:

luxury, person can survive with out it
You can survive without a phone, but how many people have one, and that IS a utility!!


MIABye
Premium
join:2001-10-28
united state
reply to ylen131

said by ylen131:

luxury, person can survive with out it
Ditto.


ylen131

join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA
reply to JRW2

said by JRW2:

said by ylen131:

luxury, person can survive with out it
You can survive without a phone, but how many people have one, and that IS a utility!!
phone can still be argued a luxury, with internet you can use 56k modem,so there is no way for now broadband can be argued is a right


SRFireside

join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX

You might be able to argue that phone is a luxury, but it's considered a utility by Government in that is has be available just about anywhere in the U.S.

I think the crux of the debate is how necessary is it to put broadband in the level of importance that the Government should deem it necessary to have it just about everywhere. Corporations depend on it so in that arena the vote is yes.



G_Poobah

join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
reply to Brownbay

It's not a right, it's a luxury..

However, having said that, does it make sense to let the government force companies to build (i.e. The TVA style). I'd say yes.

The government subsidised UNIVERSAL phone service. Can you say that the internet is different? not really. Both were considered 'luxuries' when they started, but today you can't survive without a phone (except for some very rare obscure area's). In subsidizing phone service everywhere, the early adopters were forced to pay more to make up for the unprofitable customers. Do we want to do that again for broadband?

The problem is simply wires. It costs a LOT of money to run wires everywhere. Running fibre to obscure towns, obscure roads in those towns, and widely distributed houses on those roads would be a very very expensive proposition. But is it fair to them that they don't have it? I mean, the government gave the cable and phone companies HUGE subsidies to build out in the populated areas (i.e. right of way, etc). Doesn't that free subsidies give the companies a legal obligation to support EVERYONE then? I would argue yes, since the telco's and cableco's have gotten subsidized by the government, they have an obligation to run wire everywhere.

Of course, this means the shareholders make less money. But, wait, the shareholders made more money due to subsidation, so don't loose any sleep or cry any tears over that loss. It's payback time..

now, if Verizon was SMART, it wouldn't be running fibre everywhere. It's already been proven that about 400 low earth (i.e. 200 miles up, not 25,000 miles up) satellites could provide continuous high speed coverage to the entire country. For 100 billion dollars, a company could build the network, and provide 100mb full duplex service everywhere. We have the technology, we have the capabilities, we don't have the vision..
--
Grand Poobah


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to Brownbay

said by Brownbay:

My vote goes for it being a RIGHT/UTILITY... especially in this day and age when so many things depend on it.
What "depends" on the internet? Not flaming, just want to hear what you say depends on the internet?


charlie hp

@covad.net
reply to ylen131

Agreed. To anyone who has studies the concept of "rights", there is absolutely no way in hell that broadband could ever possibly in 3 million years be considered one. At least in the Lockeian sense of rights that this country was founded on.

And I definately dont agree with broadband being made a utility. There is too much enterprise involved. Around the country we are seeing great enhancements in speed and quality. There are a few people that cant afford it. If you cant afford $15/month for SBC DSL, then I doubt:
A: you can afford and extremely basic but modern $500 computer setup
B: that having internet access is going to benefit you in any way. Its not like the burger flipper is going to get an online doctorate. Liberals and their crazy ideals.



charlie hp

@covad.net
reply to ylen131

And here's an idea:

why not make the infrastructure semi public- ie a municipality could sign a contract with a private company to foot the bill for building a fiber network in the city (this way the taxpayer wouldnt have to foot the bill, which would be one of my many major objections). The private company would not provide service itself, but would only be allowed to sell bandwidth and interconnect/ rackspace rights. For example, it could sell bandwidth on a size/distance metric, ie "one cent per megabite kilometer" or similar, on all traffic in the network. Other companies could come in and serve as ISPs, connecting the fiber network to the outside internet, providing a DNS server, customer service, etc. Different companies could provide VoIP and IPTV services.

The key is that there wouldnt be a conflict of interest between the people managing the network and those providing service on the network. The network would be contractually obligated to let anyone compete, and would likewise be contractually obligated to keep their prices at a certain rate (ie "3% a year" or "with inflation"). They would make these concessions in order to get access to the neighborhood- only the city really has the authority to be thrashing up roads and laying lines from house to house, the city could give the authority carefully to the company that was paying for all the infrastructure.

I think that would be a great setup and a great compromise between being able to bridge the problems imposed with building a network and making sure service on it is fair.



1 edit
reply to charlie hp

Actually, in suburban America, aka quite alot of America, the burger flipper will get that degree. Afterall, he's a college kid at the moment.

And as for your ideas on the cheapness of broadband... That is the LOWEST possible price for broadband in the country, where in places like Korea its the norm. Please give the percentage of individual households in the country who have the option of paying $15 for broadband. Then, when/if you do find them, and they change your mind about what you've posted, please compare those figures to other nations. Then, post them here. Oh wait, you'd find your argument has been proven fallacious and most American households, I'd say upwards of 24/25 or more CAN'T get broadband service for the $15 per month you're advertising.



Anubis Prime

join:2001-06-01
Pittsburgh, PA

1 edit
reply to Brownbay

Notice how EVERYTHING is becoming a "right". When something becomes a right, it then over-involves the gob'ment (cheese et.al).

I lobby that HBO,Showtime,Starz should be looked at as things that are mandatory for survival.

Do we have the right to an automobile? Housing isn't, healthcare isn't. When those things ARE considered rights by some, we get government disasters such as HUD, welfare and Medicare. Because we LIKE something doesn't mean we are entitled to it at taxpayer expense.

If one has a computer, and gives up smoking, drinking, the lottery and mullet haircuts then there may be some extra pocketchange left to pay up for broadband like the rest of us.


carlinniss

join:2003-05-12

1 recommendation

reply to charlie hp

So I suppose no one has ever gotten themselves out of a situation by hard work and knowledge?

The internet gives people a chance to even the playing field and get information only people with a decent amount of money have. It is possible for the burger flipper using the Internet as a tool to get a better job, or learn a skill. I used to pack boxes, and now I am a developer for a very lucrative SEO firm. I learned myself using the Internet.

So before you spout off about liberals, I am proof it does happen. I don't appreciate your comment.

As far as broadband, I do believe currently it is a luxury, but I do think people should try to make it as widespread as the telephone. It would advance things quicker as a society if we all accepted the Internet as part of our daily lives.
I know for me it's a utility, I need it and it's absolutely critical to my daily routine.



NightLinks
Premium
join:2001-06-04
Bronx, NY
reply to ylen131

said by ylen131:

luxury, person can survive with out it
I see it like cable and TV a TV is nothing without CABLE and PC's are nothing without The INTERNET!
--
The House of NOOBS!


broadband guru

@205.241.x.x
reply to SRFireside

You can also argue that a house is a luxury if you use the thought process that you currently are using. We have 10,000 homeless people in my city. Just because you can live with out something doesn't charictorize it as a luxury. Everything materalistic thing you posess would be a luxury with that arguement. A luxury would be something that you can do with-out, but get your goal completed. So a internet connection might be a luxury for somepeople, but those who are using mission critical applications, it is anything but a luxury.



broadband guru

@205.241.x.x
reply to MIABye

pepole can survive with out anything but air, food and water. Look on your streets at the homeless people, think of the natives back when they didn't have anything. Think before you post. Back up what you say. just because you can live with out it doesn't charictorize it as a luxury.


the dozer
Premium
join:2004-04-12
Douglasville, GA
reply to Brownbay

A Luxury!!!

It is definitely a luxury. Just like the telephone, cellphone
in it's early stages, not everyone had one or could afford
one. It's not a necessity to have it. It is NOT a right,
unless you have the means to have it.



Yakup

join:2000-10-12
Folsom, CA
reply to Brownbay

Re: A Right!

I believe we can live without electricity, phone, or even driving just like without internet.

However today so many businesses rely on internet for their existance I think internet is just like electricity.
--
DUDE WHERE IS MY WINGS



RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1
reply to fiberguy

said by fiberguy:

What "depends" on the internet? Not flaming, just want to hear what you say depends on the internet?
My job requires the use of the internet for all my personnel issues, 401K, pay, etc. Those have all been centralized in one area. While there are phones for overseas people and those at places without connections, it is not the easiest way to go.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.

BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001
reply to broadband guru

Why don't we just call it a PITA and leave it at that?


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to Yakup

said by Yakup:

I believe we can live without electricity, phone, or even driving just like without internet.

However today so many businesses rely on internet for their existance I think internet is just like electricity.
There is a flaw with your thinking though. Tell those 12 people that died recently in this heatwave in AZ. It's a necessity to keep water pumping, toilets flushing, fridges working to keep food fresh, I can keep going. But electricty is definetly a necessity.

Phone? Yea.. but still, it's considered a lifeline for emergency purposes. You can purchase a cell phone today and use it for 911 service at no charge. SOme states require that disconnected phones stay active for 911 only use if requested and especially during non-pay temporary disconnect. So phones can go either way.

In this post, I think the general topic is about residential broadband, not business class service either.

Also, to a previous post above, it was mentioned that work relies on internet services for 401K and other services. I do believe that if companies consolodate federally required data and information on a company intranet only delivery system that they must give access at the work place for those with out computers. Or, they have to make it available in another form.

So still, I haven't heard a convincing argument on how the internet is a necessity.


Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
reply to carlinniss

said by carlinniss:

I learned myself using the Internet.

Is this proper English?


Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland
reply to RayW

You can still access the Internet without BB. Dialup will allow access to all that you have stated.



a

@qwest.net
reply to Brownbay

broadband is like having cruise control, you just have it & freak out if it doesn't work right all the time...


Zyniker
Zyniker
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Anaheim, CA
reply to Shadow01

To some extent, yes...if he meant he learned something of himself by way of using the internet...but I don't think that was the main part of this post...
--
Join the Theuth.com Distributed Computing Team!»distributed.theuth.com/deep_thought.htm



IamZed
Premium
join:2001-01-10
Dayton, OH
reply to ylen131

said by ylen131:

luxury, person can survive with out it
You could live without an education, too.
--
A thing worth doing is worth doing to excess


Mrq5
The Fab Four

join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI
reply to Brownbay

Without reading all the replies I vote with the topic starter.

Broadband is a normal progression from speech, writing, Pony Express, horse & buggy, electricity, running water, automobiles, flight, etc...

At one time all of the above was NOT a right. All have proven to provide a much better quality of life which quickly transformed into a RIGHT rather than a luxury for the wealthy. Its only logical that Broadband should be next. Broadband offers a much better quality of life for all that use it. Sure, you could have continued to use the out-house and live without running water but human nature asks WHY???



calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
reply to charlie hp

This is not unlike what some CLECs were proposing after the Telecom Act of '96 started to get bogged down--the ILECs would be just wholesale facility providers, and all retail would be through separate retail enterprises--and the ILECs would have to treat all other retailers the same as they treated their affiliate.

As a proposal, it was a non-starter following the FCC's turn away from forcing competition following Reed Hundt's replacement by William Kennard in the Chairmanship. It had (and still has) good arguments in favor, but is doomed in the current environment where the whining Baby Bells claim that any lack of a monopoly on their part is a "disincentive to investment".

Philosophically, this proposal is sort of like saying that a motor vehicle transport system is a vital need--so the governmental units will use private industries to build backbone (roads) and the actual "transport" will be done by others using more-or-less standardized transport vehicles....

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!



calvoiper

join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
reply to Anubis Prime

The Government has to fund RIGHTS.....

A more important fact:

If something is a RIGHT, the government has to fund it for those who can't afford to buy it themselves. Examples include public school fees and lawyers for those accused of a crime punishable by imprisonment.

Basic telephone service is not (yet) a RIGHT. For heaven's sake, grow up people. Your compulsive needs to game and flame aren't sufficient justification to call BB a right.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!


reply to ylen131

Re: A Right!

said by "ylen13":
luxury, person can survive with out it.
What about a postal mailbox? Is that a luxury? Or is it an essential component of a free state / free population, in order to exercise their essential political rights?

Let's face it, *everything* is "on the internet" these days. It is (mostly still) a very democratizing medium. In fact, many gov't services and documents are available over the internet. Even more, some of those are going to be made internet-only, for the most part, within 10-15 years, if only for reasons of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If that happens, then a citizen not having internet access, would be very disenfranchising, I think. As much so as not having a postal mailbox, if not actually more so.