'Internet Freedom Act' Tries To Stop FCC Neutrality Rules Part of larger Republican effort to scuttle new rules Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) this week filed the ironically-entitled Internet Freedom Act (pdf), which is designed to prevent the FCC from enacting network neutrality rules intended to protect the open Internet. As we've discussed at length, the rules do little to nothing ISPs weren't willing to do voluntarily, fall well short of the kind of protections most consumer advocates wanted, and largely leave wireless networks without neutrality protections whatsoever. Still, Blackburn is leading a Republican charge against the new rules, a statement on her website insisting the rules are a "hysterical reaction to the hypothetical problem of anti-competitive online behavior." Apparently, many Republicans haven't gotten the memo that the rules, crafted with extensive input and approval from AT&T, don't actually do all that much.
|
  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | Figures Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) just makes Tennessee look stupid. Honestly it doesn't matter if this passes because the new rules don't do shit anyways. Just shows how stupid she is for thinking they do. If idiots like her think these weak-ass rules are bad then real NN rules will NEVER pass. | |
|  | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Figures said by BF69:Honestly it doesn't matter if this passes because the new rules don't do shit anyways. Just shows how stupid she is for thinking they do. I think you are missing the point of Congress passing a law. Sure the CURRENT FCC rules do nothing. But absent a specific law, the FCC could always toughen them up at a future date. But if Congress passes a law specifically addressing net neutrality, that forecloses the ability of the FCC to modify their rules to be more strict in the future. THAT IS THE POINT of a law being passed.
P.S.>> But I don't think this will get past the Senate anyway. The House can easily pass this Act, but it will most likely die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama. And there definitely wouldn't be enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto. | |
| | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Figures Neutrality efforts are DONE in DC. This bill is going nowhere.
The companies involved are ok with these paper thin rules, and there's absolutely no political motivation by either party to do any more on the subject. From the looks of things this is just contrarian showmanship from a bunch of politicians who barely understood the subject matter to begin with. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: Figures said by Karl Bode:Neutrality efforts are DONE in DC. This bill is going nowhere.
The companies involved are ok with these paper thin rules, and there's absolutely no political motivation by either party to do any more on the subject.
I agree with you that the bill may never get to Obama's desk and it will probably die in the Senate where a majority of bills passed by the House die.
But to say it has no political backing is incorrect. This bill has 59 co-sponsors in the House( »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.96: ) and will most likely get thru committee and come up for a vote. With Republican backing and many Dems bought by special interests this could easily pass in the House.
COSPONSORS(59), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 1/5/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 1/5/2011
Rep Bass, Charles F. [NH-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 1/5/2011
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 1/5/2011
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 1/5/2011
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 1/5/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 1/5/2011
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 1/5/2011
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 1/5/2011
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 1/5/2011
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 1/5/2011
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 1/5/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] - 1/5/2011
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 1/5/2011
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 1/5/2011
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-9] - 1/5/2011
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 1/5/2011
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 1/5/2011
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] - 1/5/2011
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 1/5/2011
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11] - 1/5/2011
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 1/5/2011
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 1/5/2011
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 1/5/2011
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 1/5/2011
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 1/5/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 1/5/2011
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 1/5/2011
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 1/5/2011
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 1/5/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 1/5/2011
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 1/5/2011
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 1/5/2011
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 1/5/2011
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 1/5/2011
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 1/5/2011
Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] - 1/5/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 1/5/2011
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 1/5/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 1/5/2011
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 1/5/2011
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 1/5/2011
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] - 1/5/2011
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 1/5/2011
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 1/5/2011
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/5/2011 | |
| | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Figures This bill has 59 co-sponsors in the House | |
| | | | | | msanto
join:2001-08-13
Castro Valley, CA | Re: Figures My problem is that Rasmussen Report which indicated that (since they really don't understand the issue) Americans are against FCC regulation of the Internet.
I trust the FCC far more than a corporation. | |
| | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Figures said by msanto:I trust the FCC far more than a corporation. In many regards, the FCC is more corporate than many corporations. They make decisions all the time that are poorly implemented, based on what brings the most $$ and not necessarily what is best for innovation and the economy. I don't trust that the FCC has any idea what they are doing at all. They are lawyers and politicians, not engineers like they should be. Any time you get lawyers and politicians involved, everything they do revolves around money, power, and bribes. | |
|
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by Karl Bode:The companies involved are ok with these paper thin rules I don't think they are ok with them, I think they settled for them to make the NN debate die down as quickly as possible. Regardless of whether these rules actually regulate anything, they have stirred a lot of public confusion and spurred plenty of anti-isp agenda (just search for articles on this site written by... um... you.)
Americans already have a bad enough entitlement attitude and most of what the government does is feed them more BS to make them think they deserve everything, whether it is right or not.
said by Karl Bode:this is just contrarian showmanship from a bunch of politicians who barely understood the subject matter to begin with. The same could be said for the very group of people at the FCC who created these "rules" in the first place. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Romney2012:said by BF69:Honestly it doesn't matter if this passes because the new rules don't do shit anyways. Just shows how stupid she is for thinking they do. I think you are missing the point of Congress passing a law. Sure the CURRENT FCC rules do nothing. But absent a specific law, the FCC could always toughen them up at a future date. But if Congress passes a law specifically addressing net neutrality, that forecloses the ability of the FCC to modify their rules to be more strict in the future. THAT IS THE POINT of a law being passed. P.S.>> But I don't think this will get past the Senate anyway. The House can easily pass this Act, but it will most likely die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama. And there definitely wouldn't be enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto. Honestly I think the majority of people in Congress on both sides are extremely ignorant of anything related to technology. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Figures said by BF69:Honestly I think the majority of people in Congress on both sides are extremely ignorant of anything related to technology.
I don't think they are stupid or uninformed. I see this argument made all the time and I think it is invalid. Maybe a couple of 80 something Senators might fall in to the category you describe(but even they have dozens of aides that are NOT technology uninformed).
You can question their motives, philosophy of how to govern, and their overriding self-interest to be re-elected(that is, being for sale to special interests) affecting their support for different issues, but thinking they are ignorant is a big mistake. People who think that way are sadly misjudging the people who represent us. And if you deal with them based on that misunderstanding, you are at a disadvantage in lobbying them for support for your issues. I have spoken directly to various congresscritters and stupid and uninformed is not how I would describe any of them. | |
| | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Figures said by Romney2012: I have spoken directly to various congresscritters and stupid and uninformed is not how I would describe any of them. Yeah, I don't know what's worse. Believing they are just ignorant or simply not knowledgeable or understanding their laws affecting Tech, -OR- deliberate, calculating and conniving. Neither option fills me with hope or confidence. :/
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | |  DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA | My U.S. Rep went broke selling Western menswear in the cowboy movie capital of the world. Hell, our school district is named after the first movie star Wiliiam S. Hart. If he doesn't understand deep packet inspection and traffic shaping who does? | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by BF69:Honestly I think the majority of people in Congress on both sides are extremely ignorant of anything related to technology. Can I get an Amen?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by BF69:Honestly I think the majority of people in Congress on both sides are extremely ignorant of anything related to technology. You think the members of Congress are ignorant? Look at this group of people at the FCC! 
The FCC used employee engineers, now it's just a bunch of lawyers. | |
| | | | msanto
join:2001-08-13
Castro Valley, CA | Yes, but they understand the $ and that's where corporations come in, with lobbying. Obviously, corporations want less regulation. | |
|
| | | real NN rules aren't going to pass anytime soon anyway. even democrats don't know what the hell they are talking about (most of them anyway) and seem to have the same view of the internet as the incumbents - "big business knows best" and "trust us". | |
|
| | Another leftist power grab. They need to do better than stop this legislation, they need to abolish the FCC as they clearly have violated a court ruling...and the FCC outlived is usefulness. From a Wall Street Journal article:
Mr. Genachowski also continues to insist that the FCC has “ancillary” jurisdiction over the Internet under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, notwithstanding a federal court decision earlier this year that said the law grants the agency no such regulatory authority. “Were we to accept that theory of ancillary authority,” wrote the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April, “we see no reason why the Commission would have to stop there, for we can think of few examples of regulations that [the Commission] . . . would be unable to impose upon Internet service providers.”
More at:
»reformaliberal.wordpress.com/201···the-fcc/ | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Another leftist power grab. It was nice to think the FCC might actually try and protect the nation's best interests, I know. Silly and wishful thinking, sure... but I'd rather be in that camp then with you in the position that Corporations should be able to ground us into the dirt at will, including the destruction of our future, in order to make a fast buck today.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by b5blue :They need to do better than stop this legislation, they need to abolish the FCC as they clearly have violated a court ruling...and the FCC outlived is usefulness. From a Wall Street Journal article:
Mr. Genachowski also continues to insist that the FCC has “ancillary” jurisdiction over the Internet under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, notwithstanding a federal court decision earlier this year that said the law grants the agency no such regulatory authority. “Were we to accept that theory of ancillary authority,” wrote the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April, “we see no reason why the Commission would have to stop there, for we can think of few examples of regulations that [the Commission] . . . would be unable to impose upon Internet service providers.”
More at:
»reformaliberal.wordpress.com/201···the-fcc/
enough with the ne-con bullshit please. Leftist grab? Please, is this the 80's? The commies are NOT comming.
Abolish the FCC? Yeah ok when your neighbors or local companies are using devices that intefere with your TV, Phone and internet connection then you'll wish there was a FCC around. | |
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Another leftist power grab. said by BF69:Abolish the FCC? Yeah ok when your neighbors or local companies are using devices that intefere with your TV, Phone and internet connection then you'll wish there was a FCC around. Yep, and that's all the FCC should be doing. NN clearly is far from the scope that they should be limited to. | |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
3 edits | Agency mandates So Karl seems to deride an effort to declaw a power-grab from the FCC because the actual power-grab doesn't really do much.
If the FCC mandate doesn't do much (as stated by the author), then why be miffed if it gets repealed? Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other....
The mandate may not do much, but it does give the agency a precedent for even more control in the future.
Agencies should not be in the business of going around the legislative process and checks-and-balances by making rules that have as much power as laws but without that pesky part about having to answer to the public for your actions...
I'm still amazed that people still look to the government for common-sense solutions... If a company gets out of line, you can fight it but if a government gets out of line... well... history is full of examples of what can happen and none of them are good... But somehow people just love to give governments more and more power over every little thing. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Agency mandates said by R4M0N:So Karl seems to deride an effort to declaw a power-grab from the FCC because the actual power-grab doesn't really do much.
I think he's saying it's not really an effort. This is just Bread and Circus to appease the base.
The same thing happened in the mid-90s. The "Revolution" lasted about 2 years. By the next congressional election, candidates didn't want the word "Contract" mentioned.
Today, as the House convened, Rs went through a reading of the Constitution. The first time in history. It's a great show. It gives the base validation. But, it doesn't really accomplish anything.
I believe the same thing will happen with this bill. They'll appease the base. It will go nowhere. And, they know that within 2 years the frenzy will subside.
It's easy to scream "No" from the minority sidelines. And, easy to create a bill that embodies "No" when you have power. But, they aren't going to disband the FCC (as the base wanted). And, they're not even going to protect internet because they know the solution is more than "No." They don't want to own that problem 2 years from now.
Politically, it would be better for them to continue letting the FCC find the edges, test the waters, etc. That's better than stopping them and something unexpected happening, and owning it because you legislated for a hot-headed base.
Politically, they'll go through a show. Waiting for the emotions to be placated and pragmatism to settle in. To a large degree, that's exactly what happened in the mid '90s. They did some big things like welfare reform. But, repealing education, energy, interior, environment.... etc? Withdrawing from the UN? All show. | |
|
| | FCC rules Look at how the government works, they start small and just make a ruling.
Then someone trying to get election funds makes a stand and adds a board to supervise a section - maybe illegal downloading. Then the rule expands as another person tries to make a name for themselves and they increase funding and once again expand the influence of the laws and increase the damage being done to the network as they add layers of compliance that WE the end-users pay for.
Add in the fact this guy passing the rules is NOT elected and answers to no one about what he does. Then you have the potential for a nightmare being created in the next 10 years.
Did you not see the determination that internet access is a RIGHT?
»www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is···ranc.php
In 10 other countries they have declared it is a RIGHT to have internet access. This bozo in charge believes the same thing.
Who will pay to wire the country?
YOU WILL. I live in a rural area and use an aircard for access as i don't have a wired provider - would you like to be forced to pay for my nice fiber connection?
It can get worse. | |
| | | | Re: FCC rules Actually, I think the tax payers should pay for a nice fiber connection to your house. The entire country should be wired this way for a national broadband infrastructure. It's been proven now that private industry isn't up to the task. They keep rewiring the same cities over and over and neglect rural America since there's not a quick payoff due to the low population density.
Wireless is not the answer to this and shouldn't be considered competition because of the low caps and metered billing. It's better to wire the entire country up once with fiber than to have multiple carriers wire the same place multiple times and completely neglect large areas of the country. | |
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: FCC rules said by mlcarson:Actually, I think the tax payers should pay for a nice fiber connection to your house. The entire country should be wired this way for a national broadband infrastructure. I do agree with this to some extent. If the government wants a network that they can regulate, then they should build a network that they actually have the authority to do something about.
If people prefer a private method, then that is fine. If they prefer the government method, then fine. At least they have a choice then. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: FCC rules said by jcremin:If the government wants a network that they can regulate, then they should build a network that they actually have the authority to do something about.
The corollary: if an ISP doesn't want to be regulated, it shouldn't use public rights of way and easements (public control of private property for the benefit of the ISP). It should instead negotiate private property rights with each homeowner (including the hold-outs who may realize they have a monopoly gold-mine).
I'm a little tired of the insinuation that the public should improve an ISP's business through the use of finite public property (and public coercion of private property owners in the form of easements). But, the public shouldn't expect ISPs to behave as a public utility.
There's a real "entitlement" mentality. | |
| | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: FCC rules said by amigo_boy:I'm a little tired of the insinuation that the public should improve an ISP's business through the use of finite public property (and public coercion of private property owners in the form of easements). Just to add another spin on the "benefits of using public property" topic....
One of the biggest benefits of letting the ISP's use this public property is the fact that they employ many thousands of people. In that sense, the public IS getting something out of it.
Regulate the crap out of them because of a pissing match about public right of ways, and we could easily lose a lot of jobs.
Just an observation.... | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: FCC rules said by jcremin:One of the biggest benefits of letting the ISP's use this public property is the fact that they employ many thousands of people.
Compared to what?
If the last mile were carved out as a public utility which dozens of ISPs could compete for every household, we could have many more people employed.
If an ISP were under public-utiity rate setting and capital expenditure review, that could lead to consumers having more money to spend on more competitive goods and services -- resulting in more jobs.
I agree with you that the topic is multi-faceted. But, those facets can shine a variety of ways. | |
| | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: FCC rules said by amigo_boy:I agree with you that the topic is multi-faceted. But, those facets can shine a variety of ways. That's true.... no matter what you do, some people stand to gain while others lose. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: FCC rules said by jcremin:said by amigo_boy:I agree with you that the topic is multi-faceted. But, those facets can shine a variety of ways. That's true.... no matter what you do, some people stand to gain while others lose. That's exactly where my position comes from. But, I add that gain/loss is often a result of how public policy is developed.
It's not merely a "state of nature," as John Locke describes pre-society life, where gain/loss depends entirely on each individual's ability's, tactics, strategies, choices, and strength to defend (and take).
By forming society (social contract), individuals delegate a portion of those natural traits for mutual benefit. But, nothing is ever perfectly "mutual." Thus, each of us vie for the delegated strength to defend (and take).
We end up with bank bailouts which benefit the capitalized more than those who possess labor wealth. Or, minimum wage laws to benefit the laborer at the expense of the capitalized. (Or, railroad executives with land grants, and army protection.).
I believe all political/economic theories share some truth. And, I think Karl Marx's opening statement to the Communist Manifesto is undeniably true:
quote:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
-- »www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo···.htm#ab1
Locke (a champion of liberty and freedom) would agree with that observation. It is the entire basis for individuals leaving a theoretical "state of nature" to form society. In nature, two "takers" would combine together to defeat your ability to defend. You'd combine with three for mutual benefit. The "takers" would grow to a dozen for theirs.
Within a week you end up with social contract for the purpose of "mutual benefit" -- and disagreements about what is "mutually" beneficial. (I.e., should the interstate go past my town or yours?).
The only thing that happened was transferring individual prerogatives to the collective -- including the prerogative to act in the interest of one individual at the expense of another. All that has happened is to make it more orderly, and democratic.
I.e., now it takes a vote to rob someone. Through that democratic process the robbery is weighed against it's contribution to the common good -- at least in theory. I believe today it's become little more than "I've got mine... screw everybody else" or "as long as my ox isn't gored." There's very little consideration of how the robbery promotes common good.
This ties back to JoeBarnhart's response in another thread. He said property owners grant easements (through the social contract's creation of city planning) because they benefit by the creation of sewers, water, electricity, telephone, etc. Their properties become worth more than they would if you had to carry water to them, or go out to the gutter to relieve your bowels.
That's an example of using "delegated powers to take" for "mutual benefit." Some win, others lose. Who are the losers, you ask? One example are the individuals who might have purchased property which was collectively set aside as alleys, streets and sidewalks. Or, the fellow with an easement on his property, preventing him from adding an addition to his house, due to his neighbor's interests in having a utility in their neighborhood. Those folks could have sold their property for a handsome profit to a private street builder who needed to reach larger markets (neighbors down the street).
Therefore, if society is formed for "mutual benefit," and this involves things like setting aside property (or using an easement to control how a private-property owner uses their property), obviously the use of that property is for a social purpose, and should be subject to questions about how the scales of benefit are tipping.
No doubt my neighborhood has benefited from cable and dsl. But, looking at Cox and Qwest financial statements and executive compensation, it looks like they've benefited like a normal private business that doesn't use socially-created property rights.
I think our society's problem is that we deny Marx's observation. We pretend there isn't vying for benefit from public policy. That their aren't socially-created winners and losers.
We have:
- People who move next to an airport or gun range, benefiting from the lower property value. Then complain to elected officials that the airport or gun range hurts their property values (wanting benefit at the expense of the property owner.).
- the elite engaging in Social Darwinism -- benefiting disproportionately from offshoring jobs, or bailouts of the financial (capital markets) system.
- the poor petitioning for higher minimum wage, welfare benefits, unemployment extensions.
When the poor do it (or a broadband owner questions how monopolistic use of public property may disproportionately benefit a business), all we hear is "class warfare," or "entitlement mentality."
When we see social policy used to promote Social Darwinism, we're told "you need to work harder, that could have been you. Stop expecting a handout."
I think that denial of class warfare obliterates objective reasoning and calm discussion about how public policy is used, and how our mutual is the benefit from the social contract.
There's nothing wrong with believing ISPs are benefiting adequately. But, denying how they benefit, and insisting it's everyone else who benefits from socialization of markets, totally misses the problem, and the reality of what everyone is engaged in. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Ironwolf21 :Who will pay to wire the country?
YOU WILL. I live in a rural area and use an aircard for access as i don't have a wired provider - would you like to be forced to pay for my nice fiber connection? So what. It's for the better good. If they had your attitude 75 years ago we'd still have parts of the country without POTS lines or electricity. Trust me, your grocieries would be MUCH higher if farmer Brown still didn't have electricity. Do you want the US to become a 2nd class country. I don't.
Oh by the way if you do the math the cost to wire the US for 99% of the public would be PENNIES. | |
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: FCC rules said by BF69:Oh by the way if you do the math the cost to wire the US for 99% of the public would be PENNIES. The National Broadband Plan says the total cost to build out fiber to 95% of the country would be $670 billion. We could guess and say that last 5% would probably double the number, but for we'll just stick with 95%.
Divide that cost over the roughly 310 million people, and we're talking about a cost of $2,161 per person. That is for every adult and child regardless of whether they pay taxes or not. A quick search states that there are roughly 138 million people who file taxes. That puts us at a price tag of close to $5,000 per taxpayer (in addition to the taxes they already pay).
So I think you are underestimating the cost to build out, especially to 99%. The NBP can be many billions off, and it would still be expensive. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: FCC rules said by jcremin:to build out fiber to 95% of the country would be $670 billion. ... Divide that cost over the roughly 310 million people, and we're talking about a cost of $2,161 per person.
Infrastructure development is usually amortized over 20-30 years. Think bonds. It's something that will benefit upcoming generations.
The Interstate Highway System cost $425 billion in 2006 dollars. Same principle.
I agree that the lifespan (capacity) of fiber may not be the same as a bridge. But, it's not like it has to be paid for in 1 year either. 15 maybe?
Then there is the factor of economic expansion, resulting in more tax revenue? The potential to move OTA television to internet broadcasters (if fiber were socialized to serve a public good, like OTA broadcasting). Freeing up wireless spectrum for auction. | |
| | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: FCC rules said by amigo_boy:Infrastructure development is usually amortized over 20-30 years. Think bonds. It's something that will benefit upcoming generations. I don't disagree with debt when it is a good investment. I think it would be great, but I don't think that now is the time when the country is already so far in debt. While important, I think that there are much better things the money could be put to.
Granted I also thing that the money could easily come from cutting programs that encourage people to sit around on their ass and not even look for a job, amongst a million other poorly run money pit programs out there..... | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: FCC rules said by jcremin:I don't disagree with debt when it is a good investment. I think it would be great, but I don't think that now is the time when the country is already so far in debt.
Since the financial industry and the population possessing capital were *bailed out* by taxpayer money, maybe a good solution would be to expect them to foot more of the bill -- bailing out the rest of us.
Income and wealth disparity have grown tremendously the past 30 years. Preliminary results indicate the meltdown has exacerbated this condition because the average person had relatively little to recover from the financial industry's bailout.
I'm not enthused by arguments that we've used up all our ammo bailing out financial institutions (and their largest patrons, who happen to be a small fraction of the population). Maybe the largest beneficiaries should do some bailing of everyone else. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by BF69: If they had your attitude 75 years ago we'd still have parts of the country without POTS lines or electricity.
Or, how about 175 years ago? When the intercontinental railroad was created through heavy social involvement. The 1862 Railroad Act created a corporation, along with federally-appointed commissioners. It funded the effort and allocated public rights of way for use by the railroad companies (land grants).
Today, people would whiz themselves about how "there's no constitutional mandate to create corporations, or for the interior department to appoint commissioners, or for the interior department to even exist, or to create railroads which the states should create! Make the people who benefit pay for it!!!"
And then, a year later, another federal act set the gauge of the rail! OMG!!! Today, people would have a stroke! "The federal government doesn't.... (plonk)"
It's so easy to be beneficiaries of social moderation of free markets -- and then insist everyone else shouldn't. Can you imagine how the country may have turned out if we didn't have that bit of expediency back then? Could we have responded to circumstances like WWI and II?
There's another interesting parallel to the modern debate.
After the railroad was completed? Well, of course the railroad companies considered themselves entirely "private" business. Land granted to them (larger than the size of Texas!) was sold to settlers at a handsome profit. They engaged in reckless (profit-driven) business practices. Gave discounts to influential customers (to the detriment of smaller ranchers and farmers). And... they charged immensely more in areas with no competition.
Land, money, a corporation, federal army to protect them. And, when it was finished: "it's mine, all mine I tell you! Keep your hands off!"
Within 25 years the public was outraged, and the Interstate Commerce Commission was created (1887). Like today's FCC it pandered to the outrage -- while regulating to the benefit of railroad interests. Subsequent Presidents staffed the ICC with railroad elite.
However, after 1900, meaningful regulation began to occur.
This stuff is really Social Darwinism. A form of facism. That the elite rise to power due to natural abilities, and it is fair use of government to serve their needs, enrich themselves, and ensure the furtherance of the elite. That to "share" or operate toward a "public" need would be to act contrary to Darwinistic laws of "survival of the fittest." Like encouraging the diseased and infirm to propagate. Perverting all the laws of nature!
It's a circular argument. We are powerful and elite. It is our duty to use government to reward the powerful and elite -- to preserve the socially "fittest." Society isn't constituted for economic democracy, or equal opportunity. It is to protect the interests of the elite who, by their nature as elite, have a duty to use society's institutions for their own purpose.
It's facism. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Get ready for years and years of this crap... Calling it names like "Freedom" and "Patriot" and "Fairness" always means lookout, here comes some real BS.
Hell, just look at Oklahoma.... raising power rates on Consumers and small business while lowering rates for large businesses ("To help promote hiring".) Whatever. Handout. Guess what small businesses make more jobs then large ones, and the people now paying higher rates are the ones who keep said small businesses operating....
Welcome to the Red State shuffle.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | Re: Get ready for years and years of this crap... It's not just Red states.
Here in Michigan while we have been in a 10 year Depression level economy - our wonderful Governor Granholm (D) passed a law stopping the building of new Coal fired electric plants that would have provided THOUSANDS of jobs, while adding a 10% rate rise to promote "green" energy research.
Yeah, morons are morons regardless of the Party. | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Get ready for years and years of this crap... I can understand that, but build a nuclear plant first...  | |
| | | | | | Re: Get ready for years and years of this crap... That is one of the things that pissed me off about my own side of the political spectrum. We could be running most of our power off of cleaner, longer lasting and more efficient nuclear power but because it gives the hippies heebie jeebies we are stuck burning coal for power like primitives. | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Get ready for years and years of this crap... I agree. The technology has some a long way. You have reactor designs that cannot melt down, even if you tried to make them.
There's always been the matter of the waste--- but then again Coal power plants create a massive waste problem as well, (Fly Ash) as well as air pollution.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| This hippie dislikes nuclear power because it is generated hundreds of miles from where it is used and a very large chunk of the energy produced is used keeping birds' feet warm. Electrical generation should be done as locally as possible.
Coal burning power plants contaminate hundreds of square miles with heavy metals and radioactive materials. They cause cancer. They are dirtier than nukes. I really think they are both past their heyday.
The right wing lunatic fringe in the US House is trying to give the impression that net neutrality and the fairness doctrine are the same issue; they think the FCC wants to stifle Freerepublic dot com and Rush Limbaugh, and this is the camel's nose under the tent. | |
|
| | Complete horseshit Neutrality IS freedom.
What a stupid moron they've got in office. | |
| | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Complete horseshit said by Ncrdrg :Neutrality IS freedom. Not from the business's point of view. Every time you give someone a freedom, you're usually taking it away from someone else. Except when you give it to the customers of the very industry you are taking it away from, there will be a price to pay. NN means higher prices due to reduced profit margins. | |
| | | DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA | Re: Complete horseshit Well then it appears the profit motive hurts the consumer. | |
|
| | | | Re: Derrr.... No the FCC has become whatever it WANTS to be. Did you not see in the above COURT ruling they said the FCC can't do exactly what they went and did ANYWAYS.
They aren't elected and are full of loons and idiots.
You think the Republicans are in the pockets of big business because the media and the left wingers say so - who raised the most money from LARGE Businesses in history?
Barack Obama.
You are being sold a line of nonsense. Companies both large and small provide JOBS. They don't have black/whire vans that go around and assasinate people who take them to court or disagree with them.
I work for a big company and I asked - hey, how do I get a job in the black van group? I am ex-military and have done martial arts my whole life and was a marksman every time I tested. Yeah, strangely enough HR doesn't have postings for that.
You have been brain washed that companies are evil and don't like people and forget - companies are MADE of people.
Seriously, I have seen propaganda like this in Pravda and its what our media has become - they spew one side trying to promote socialism and communist ideals. It is a FACT that Obama was a member of both Socialist and Communist societies all thru college and yet when he hired every single Cabinet post and appointee who is of the same thought - you think people are over-reacting.
This FCC "Czar" is doing whatever HE wants and wrote the law to please who? AT&T one of those huge companies you say the Republicans cater to.
Man, do some research people and stop buying whatever KeithOlberman or Rush Limbaugh sells you. | |
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Derrr.... said by Ironwolf21 :No the FCC has become whatever it WANTS to be. Did you not see in the above COURT ruling they said the FCC can't do exactly what they went and did ANYWAYS. Yeah, I agree that the FCC needs a swift kick in the ass to show them what their responsibilities are. If the FCC is supposed to protect the consumer, fix the damn spectrum mess they have created so WISPs have a decent chunk of spectrum to use. Giving them 100mhz of good spectrum will pay of a million times over in the long run than it would make in an auction.
said by Ironwolf21 :You are being sold a line of nonsense. Companies both large and small provide JOBS. And people don't seem to understand that increased regulation comes at an increase cost to business which means they lay off people. | |
|
 joebarnhartPaxio evangelist
join:2005-12-15
Santa Clara, CA | The focus needs to be on competition Net neutrality is an attempt to create a level field using rules and law. It will always be subject to "regulatory capture" which is what has happened here with this ill-fated effort.
If we want a truly neutral net, that will only come when there is more competition among providers. If you only have Comcast and AT&T as providers, they can pretty much do anything they want to you. If you throw more carriers in the mix, the incumbents can't steamroll users with anti-consumer policies.
In my area we have a small carrier (Paxio) which does not filter or obstruct traffic, and they will no doubt grow as the incumbents throttle and mangle traffic for their own anti-competitive benefit. | |
|  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Internet Freedom (in this case)
is NOT FREE!! | |
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| I don't understand this bill I followed the link and it's from 2009?
Also, I'm only seeing 20 lines. It says:
quote:
(d) GENERAL PRINCIPLES.—Congress finds that—
(1) the Internet and all IP-enabled services are services affecting interstate commerce; and
(2) such services are not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State or municipal locality.
That seems remarkable. It doesn't seem to limit the FCC at all. And, it invokes the interstate-commerce clause to impede upon so-called state's rights.
All we hear from that political persuasion is how the interstate-commerce clause is abused, and states rights are sacred.
This is exactly like the mid-90s "revolution." | |
| | | Three words...just 3 words... Paid off bimbo... | |
| | | I agree We here in the states probably wouldn't even need NetNeutrality if all we had was more competition and cheaper prices. Congress should allow more competition. | |
| | | | List of names... Is basically a list of corrupt corporate kiss-butts. Don't believe me? Check their voting records.
A bill repealing consumer protections with "freedom" in the title just about sums it up for republicans. They pose as wanting "the American ideal" but then go and attempt to undermine the very foundation of civil liberties & public safety & security.
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
