dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed
« most people do not need it
This is a sub-selection from A Right!


ylen131

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

Re: A Right!

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.



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.


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.


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?



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

said by carlinniss:

I learned myself using the Internet.

Is this proper English?

Zyniker
Zyniker
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Anaheim, CA

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


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!


reply to ylen131

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.


FightingBlue

@direcpc.com

1 recommendation

reply to IamZed

quote:
You could live without an education, too.

Given the tenor of his post, I suspect that he already does.

Freezone

join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI

1 recommendation

reply to Shadow01

said by Shadow01:

said by carlinniss:

I learned myself using the Internet.

Is this proper English?
No butit proves his point even more. He has assholes like you to teach him better.


charlie hp

@covad.net
reply to broadbanderexpanderc

You can get broadband now for under $40/month in pretty much every metropolitan and suburban location in america. Thats cheap. Hardly more than an average dialup ISP ($15/month) and a dedicated phone line ($20+/month after taxes and fees). Even if you're not making a lot of money, if getting broadband is one of your priorities, its not a problem. You'd be surprised at how many people under the poverty line actually have basic cable, which costs about as much. One of the saddest sights I see are the satellite dishes hanging near the windows on "projects" in chicago. They're living a building paid for with taxpayer money, they're kids probably arent getting what they need to succeed in school, and they're spending $60/month to get HBO so they can watch the "Kings of Comedy" specials. Great.

And if the burger flipper was a college kid then he would have internet in his dorm. Bottom line is that anyone who wants broadband can already afford it if they're willing to pay for it. People who work in america really arent that poor. And if you're so poor and decrepit as to be unable to afford $40/month max even as you really want it, then I stick to my point, you're probably beyond help.

What you people are saying is like saying "we should subsidize buying cars because people need cars to get to jobs and to school" or "we should subsidize shoes, he's missing out on so many opportunities".


I wonder why they aren't getting what they need to succeed in their urban area public school but schools like the public school in West Chester, PA and Longmeadow, MA and other suburban communities get plenty of funding?

Oh yes! Because we allocate our government spending in ridiculous ways that promote the status quote and insure that certain people remain poorly educated so as to provide the unemployment pool that keeps laborers hinged to an exploitative market, hoorah! The schools that need national funding are ignored and not given the hands-on approach needed to make them work. Teachers in wealthy suburbs make more than urban and rural teachers. Ridiculous. The government passes standards (No Child Left Behind) but than illegally demands states fund the programs to pass those standards. Blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, I think giving away cars and shoes to everyone in the world would be fantastic. I don't know why you hate free stuff so much!

"Beyond help." Hmmm ... never heard that one in economic theory before. I think you're being a bit unacademic there ...

But all of those things HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE SO LET'S GET ON TOPIC

Let's look at my statement again ...

"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."

You have not done what I asked, at all.

Show me the exact percentage of houses who can get broadband for that rate. Heck, show me the numbers fo $40 and compare it with other countries. And I don't mean slow satellite times, I mean broadband and broadband speeds.

Why do you act like my issues are with exclusively urban poor? My issue is with rural areas as well. My issue isn't with "you should be able to afford it" its with "look at other countries' prices" in comparison. My issue has NOTHING to do with subsidies. You don't buy broadband cheaper for people. You make it cheaper in the market. You don't have to subsidize it. You stop the price-gouging of exploitative companies. You promote profitable municipalization.

Tell me this, if an IOU can build a system, maintain that system, provide service AND make a profit, than logically, can't a "city" "or (individually-owned utility) do the same thing cheaper? Afterall, it doesn't even want to make a profit! It can charge the lowest price possible. Woot. Woot. Seems other countries figured that out to solve rural area penetration problems, didn't they?

Its not about subsidization in anyway. Its about fostering lower prices. A profit is still a profit even if its a more reasonable profit.



a

@qwest.net
reply to ylen131

ok, let's disconnect the cruise control from your vehicle since that is a luxury as well


carlinniss

join:2003-05-12

1 edit
reply to Freezone

said by Freezone:

No butit proves his point even more. He has assholes like you to teach him better.
Hahahah Exactly!

Oh, and I didn't say I learned English on the Internet. Geez, like no one here has ever messed up on grammar.

I learned web development, and I think a lot of people would benefit from having the Internet available. There's a boob tube in every house spouting nothing but utter garbage...

Why not have something worthwhile as an option?

bbandbrat
Big Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.Us
Premium
join:2005-04-05
USA
reply to SRFireside

You're absolutely correct. The government considers a phone an essential service. Therefore it created the universal service fund, which we all pay, to fund services in hard to serve areas and for low income individuals. The Telcos are also required to provide what is known as "life line" services for individuals who request such a service.

Consider that at one point electricity was a luxury, now considered essential; telephones were a luxury, now considered essential; broadband will become essential. Although it can be argued that an individual can live without braodband today, the economy can not successfully compete without the opportunity for 100% broadband penetration to it's population. It is the opportunity that is essential today. Whether an individual makes use of the opportunity is an issue of personal choice.

BBB


bbandbrat
Big Broadband Everywhere - Firstmile.Us
Premium
join:2005-04-05
USA
reply to charlie hp

said by charlie hp:

You can get broadband now for under $40/month in pretty much every metropolitan and suburban location in america. Thats cheap. Hardly more than an average dialup ISP ($15/month) and a dedicated phone line ($20+/month after taxes and fees).
....
And if the burger flipper was a college kid then he would have internet in his dorm. Bottom line is that anyone who wants broadband can already afford it if they're willing to pay for it. People who work in america really arent that poor. And if you're so poor and decrepit as to be unable to afford $40/month max even as you really want it, then I stick to my point, you're probably beyond help.
How arrogant and ill-informed. It must be nice to have a silver spoon in one's mouth.

1.) $40 dollars a month isn't cheap to everyone in suburbia. Try paying that when you've been laid off and you're living off credit cards because you've been looking for a job for almost a year so you're saving is gone and you're about to loose the place where you live. You're not a slouch, just a victum of right-sizing, mergers, and/or outsourcing. Yet you need access to the internet and email to get that next job. Or how about the person "flipping burgers" as you say, who is trying to go to school to improve himself and get out of flipping burgers. I guess I've been on the bottom and clawed my way out so I have a totally different perspective on this point. $40 is NOT cheap.

2.) Not all of suburbia has broadband. I live in suburban southern CA with $450,000 - $1 million dollar homes being built all around me. There is no DSL in many areas. SBC says there is but just call and ask for it or go to their website and type in your phone number and they politely tell you you are out of reach. The cable company services part of the area, but not all - since it's in BANKRUPTCY.

I guess I'd tell you to get out in the REAL world - it's not so pretty as you'd like to think.

BBB