jkeelsnc
join:2008-08-22
Boone, NC
| Not a surprise
Of course these companies are not going to accurately map out where broadband really is to reveal pockets that do not have coverage. Personally, I do not think that we should rely on the companies to do it. They are already adding caps while charging more money for the connections they already provide. Why should we count on them to be honest.
Instead, the government should do their own survey of users in every state. The incumbents can argue against it all they want. However, there is no regulation or legal precedent that would stop the federal government from doing this. Specifically, they cannot stop users from complaining and surveying with the government to collect accurate data. Then write off what the incumbents have to say. They have been screwing us all for a long time anyway. They cannot be trusted. Well the government cannot sometimes be trusted either. But with the new administration things are more transparent than before. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, etc can go F&*& themselves. |
|
MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle.
p.s.>
said by jkeelsnc  : Well the government cannot sometimes be trusted either. But with the new administration things are more transparent than before. Really? I think not. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| One of the few times I agree with you...not on the govt. boondoggle part, but on the idea of getting real data.
Build any required questions into the Census. Most people know whom they're paying for service. Screw trying to get real data from the telcos & cablecos...
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
 ·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
Speakeasy
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
| reply to MAR_03_2002
said by MAR_03_2002 :Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle. You want to limit any useful broadband coverage data to once every 10 yeas?
--
goodbye dad |
|
MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by fatness :said by MAR_03_2002 :Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle. You want to limit any useful broadband coverage data to once every 10 yeas? They do between-census updates of the every 10 years census every year anyway to update info. No reason why the broadband data wouldn't be included in these frequent modifications to the 10 yr census data.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| reply to MAR_03_2002
Ok, so lets suppose we do add the questions to the census and we get actual data from those questions. Who determines what questions are asked and how do you structure those questions to get usable technical data?
Remember that there are still questions as to what Broadband really means. If the "experts" are still not on the same page, how do you expect any data from the public to shed light on this?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to MAR_03_2002
said by MAR_03_2002 :Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle. ... I had thought of that also, but the more I thought (oh, another several seconds or so) I realized that's not the answer either.
the reason is so many people DON'T have broadband because they don't want to pay for it of just don't want it period. I could see an issue with census data as indicating an area doesn't have broadband (even if it does) because a lot of people don't know if broadband is available to them or not. There is a potential issue in the other direction with people saying they can get it (whether they have it or not) because they saw a commercial for FIOS on TV and figured they could get it. I keep getting mailers from Verizon offering DSL and "digital" phone, but I have never been able to get DSL and expect I never will.
The way to get this data is from the ISPs themselves. If the govt has to pay them for the cost of assembling and copying the data, that's fine. But the only sure way to get accurate data is from the ISPs. Unless, of course, they lie to the govt. |
|
cag9228
join:2004-04-07
Richardson, TX
| reply to jkeelsnc
I think you ought to try to start up your own broadband company and negotiate routing your traffic to the companies that run the backbones. Of course, you'd have to create your own equipment because you wouldn't want to use equipment from that loathsome Cisco company.
Perhaps we should re-write the Declaration of Independence to include the words "life, liberty, broadband access, and the pursuit of happiness"
Diatribe aside, I feel your pain. I understand how most, if not all, of the companies provide a service that is deemed too expensive or too restrictive. I've had my own little fights with Comcast and AT&T. I'd love to have more choices, but I *CHOSE* to live where I do for my job. The reality of the situation is that if broadband really matters that much to you, you can relocate yourself to one of those modern day utopias where you get 100MB down. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to MAR_03_2002
said by MAR_03_2002 :Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle. Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :said by MAR_03_2002 :Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle. Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional. That was the purpose of the census back in the 1800's. Since then it has been turned in to a data mining operation to decide on what gov't programs need to be beefed up. Have you actually filled out a "full census form" in 2000 or 1990? There were dozens of questions on income, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional. So how come they ask a lot more than number of and age of people? Marital status, whether I consider myself caucasian or other, what's my family income, and a lot more.
This is the full form for 2010. »www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/20···book.pdf Full version wants to know about bathroom facilities, among many other seriously detailed things. Since the questions are presented to Congress, it seems reasonable to say it has the force of law. Constitution be damned, just do it, they say.
There's a shorter version that they use for most people, but trust me, it's not only about count. |
|
Buttset
join:2001-11-12
Ladson, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to MAR_03_2002
Census data is supposed to be collected every 10 years for a single purpose. To determine how many Representatives each state would get in the House of Representatives. The only information the government needs to comply with the original intent of the law, is how many people live in a home. Period.
Using the Census data for any other purpose is unconstitutional, not to mention dumb. Haven't we given away too much already? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to MAR_03_2002
said by MAR_03_2002 :Have you actually filled out a "full census form" in 2000 or 1990? There were dozens of questions on income, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc. I refuse to do so. The government only needs to know how many people live in my house and nothing more.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Buttset
said by Buttset :Census data is supposed to be collected every 10 years for a single purpose. To determine how many Representatives each state would get in the House of Representatives. The only information the government needs to comply with the original intent of the law, is how many people live in a home. Period. Using the Census data for any other purpose is unconstitutional, not to mention dumb. Haven't we given away too much already? You can complain it is unconstitutional all you want. But there is nothing you can do about it. If you are adamant about it - don't fill it out. Or sue in Federal court. Good luck with that!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to birdfeedr
said by birdfeedr :So how come they ask a lot more than number of and age of people? Marital status, whether I consider myself caucasian or other, what's my family income, and a lot more. Because the Census Bureau is not following the Constitution. Only a mere head count is required. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Koil
Premium
join:2002-09-10
West Columbia, SC
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by MAR_03_2002 :Include a question or 2 in the next census in 2010. That money has to be spent anyway. No sense wasting more millions on another gov't boondoggle. Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional. said by pnh102 :said by MAR_03_2002 :Have you actually filled out a "full census form" in 2000 or 1990? There were dozens of questions on income, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc. I refuse to do so. The government only needs to know how many people live in my house and nothing more. You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again.
Your post makes it appear to be fact, when it most certainly isn't. As of right now, anyway. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Before this thread degenerates like those before it, please read »Re: Why not just as a part of the census? as well as the replies to it.
-- Robb (just saving time)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Koil
said by Koil :You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again. Because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear about requiring an enumeration, or head count.
The Supreme Court affirmed this as well in 1999:
»www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/199···_98_404/
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Koil
Premium
join:2002-09-10
West Columbia, SC
clubs: | reply to funchords
lol...Honestly, I hadn't seen those threads, so wasn't aware of the prior discussions. I'll leave it be, but saying something is, doesn't make it so. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Absolutely not. The purpose of the census is to determine how many people live in a particular state so that the proper number of congressional seats can be determined. Any other use, and any method other than a head count is unconstitutional. said by Koil :You think it to be unconstitutional. It hasn't been decreed that nor has it been outlawed as its been, and will be done again. Because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear about requiring an enumeration, or head count. The Supreme Court affirmed this as well in 1999: » www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/199···_98_404/ Read the page that you link -- it specifically says that the court found based on the statutory basis alone and avoided the constitutional question brought.
(Further, the question here has nothing to do with your "any other use" assertion, so your position that it is unconstitutional is not supported by that cite one bit.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
