We're Still Bickering Over Minimum Definition Of 'Broadband' No wonder it's 2009 and we still have no national broadband plan... The Wall Street Journal has more detail on the scurrying and begging of broadband industry lobbyists, who are lining up to get potential handouts from the government. The article sums up which groups want what, noting that the Obama camp is exploring everything, including corporate tax credits to build new wireless or landline infrastructure, government-backed broadband bonds, and grants to companies or local governments (sadly, juice boosting isn't an option). Perhaps most entertaining in the piece is how, after countless years without any kind of broadband policy whatsoever, the industry is still fighting over very basic things like the minimum definition of broadband. The cable industry wants a faster standard definition of broadband to highlight the slower speed of line-distance limited DSL in many markets. Meanwhile, many phone companies, still nursing copper, think 1.5Mbps makes more sense: Large cable operators are seeking to increase the FCC's definition of broadband download speed to about five megabits per second, about 6½ times as fast as the current definition...The Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, which represents midsize phone companies, is pushing for a slower broadband standard, in the range of 1.5 to three megabits per second. Of course either would be better than the current minimum definition for broadband: 768kbps. That was only just recently bumped from 200kbps by the FCC after years of prodding. Previous efforts to raise the minimum standard definition to 2Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream have gone nowhere. If the industry can't even agree on what (or where) broadband is, it makes you wonder how we're going to reach any kind of consensus on how to actually improve things.
|
  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Sad. I'm sure of one thing. They'll want as much as they can take, and give back as little in value to the citizenry as they can.
Seriously, I wish they'd at least try the public infrastructure/private service provider plan on a decent scale somewhere.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Sad. That speedometer looks like it's from a Ford Mustang, say about 1997 or maybe 1996.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | I believe Utopia in Utah would qualify as "a decent scale". Current reviews are mixed...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Sad. Utopia is similar, but far from the best case scenario, from what I've come to believe. Firstly, apparently the infrastructure isn't open to all service providers, you have a select few to choose from, and their offers seem somewhat limited. Secondly you have the incumbents, instead of providing services over the network, are in competition with it using their own networks and pricing to try and kill the model.
I'm thinking of a first rate, expansive and powerful FTTH network that is offered to service providers for them to host their own services on. For example you could have independent ISP's, or big companies like Cox and AT&T and Dish Network etc all available over the network to the homes and businesses. Plus regular guys like you and me could establish our own on line businesses on it, etc.
Basically open to all who pay the same level of access fees.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Sad. That would be a great model. Unfortunately I don't think it would work given the current political climate both on a Federal and local level. As usual, it all comes down to who pays to build it...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Do nothing Congress Well with Congresses lowest rating ever recorded, how could you expect anything. Could we starting blaming Obama now ? He said he wanted to stop investments, and tax the rich. How is that going to spur growth ? | |
| |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Do nothing Congress You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. | |
| | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Do nothing Congress said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. Hey, no problem. It's all Obama's fault, and Obama is as bad, if not worse than Hitler.
On a serious note, to take issue with DaveNJ pointing out that Congress has some of the responsibility to bear when it comes to the condition of the nation is akin to saying "it's all Bush's fault".
In other words, you sound as much like an ideologue as he does, perhaps even more.
Pot, meet kettle....
edit for clarity
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | | | | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Do nothing Congress Nice attempt at a personal attack. Trust me, I won't bite.
For the record, I don't smoke pot (never did) and quite frankly I hate the smell of it. Something I have knowledge of only due to professional experience.
If you want to add a multiplier to your proposed IQ, you just might get the number right.
I invite you to join the discussion with rational, well thought out viewpoints at any time. I enjoy the healthy exchange of ideas. It's what keeps this country great.
Personal attacks take us no where. Something I think Bill Clinton spoke about in the 90's. The "politics of personal attack" I believe he called it.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Do nothing Congress Wow. I'm sure you mean so well.
*This was directed at another post that was deleted by the mod.* | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Do nothing Congress SHRUG..... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Do nothing Congress Just want you to know my remark was directed at r81984 who's posts were deleted by a mod, but that doesn't show if you view via the front page. Viewed through the front page you'll just notice the link lines don't line up any more. | |
| | | | | | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Do nothing Congress No problem. I see the Mods are hard at work. | |
|
| |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. 
However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression.
Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Do nothing Congress said by pnh102:.... However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. .... got any links or citations to back up that claim about taxing the rich not raising revenue? that statement appears ludicrous on it's face.
Obviously, Bush's tax cuts were great for the economy as we can see by the wonderful prosperity and happiness all around us today.
with regard to your comments on FDR's policies, you are doing nothing more than parroting right wing talking points. | |
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Do nothing Congress said by nasadude:got any links or citations to back up that claim about taxing the rich not raising revenue? that statement appears ludicrous on it's face. You do know that the Great Depression did not end until we got into World War 2, right? Just as a refresher on your history, that did not happen until the end of 1941. If FDR's programs had worked, the Depression would have ended far sooner than that.
said by nasadude:Obviously, Bush's tax cuts were great for the economy as we can see by the wonderful prosperity and happiness all around us today. So there was no economic growth at all under the Bush regime? Recessions happen. They are a part of the business cycle. Had Bush not taken the course of action he took in 2001, but instead followed the model of Herbert Hoover and FDR, we'd still be in a Depression to this day.
said by nasadude:with regard to your comments on FDR's policies, you are doing nothing more than parroting right wing talking points. Which happen to be 100% true. Go back and read up on your history if you are still not convinced.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Do nothing Congress said by pnh102:Which happen to be 100% true. Go back and read up on your history if you are still not convinced. I would direct your attention to this site:
»www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/c···ion.html
(bold added by me)
1929
* Herbert Hoover becomes President.
* Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash.
* Stock market crash begins October 24.
1930
* By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate real estate... values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people'.
* The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
* No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
* The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.
1932
* This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
* Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
* Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress.
1933
* Roosevelt inaugurated; begins 'First 100 Days'; of intensive legislative activity.
* Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.
* Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is concerned with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes' advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
* The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1934
* The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.
1935
* Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration.
* Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act.
* Economic recovery continues
1936
* Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
* Economic recovery continues
1937
* Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession.
1938
* No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to Roosevelt's weakened political power.
* The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
1939
* The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
* The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.
Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called 'Seven Fat Years!') When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession in 1938.
forgot to include:
1945
* The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it had ever known until that time. | |
| | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Do nothing Congress And again, you confirm that it was indeed our entering World War 2 that ended the Depression. None of FDR's programs, by what you wrote, did anything to end it. In fact, you show that his tax hikes actually made things worse by the late 1930s. You also conveniently forget to mention that FDR did nothing to repeal the isolationist foreign trade policies enacted by his predecessor.
And calling 19% unemployment a "recession" colors the truth just a bit, doesn't it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | | |  fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| said by pnh102:You do know that the Great Depression did not end until we got into World War 2, right? Just as a refresher on your history, that did not happen until the end of 1941. If FDR's programs had worked, the Depression would have ended far sooner than that. You keep repeating that as though it's that simple -- that what Roosevelt did failed. That's not the case. His programs kept millions employed and others from losing their homes and farms, something Hoover did not see fit to do. I'm assuming you know that, but that some readers may not.
»topics.nytimes.com/topics/refere···dex.html
President Herbert Hoover, a Republican and former Commerce secretary, believed the government should monitor the economy and encourage counter-cyclical spending to ease downturns, but not directly intervene. As the jobless population grew, he resisted calls from Congress, governors, and mayors to combat unemployment by financing public service jobs. He encouraged the creation of such jobs, but said it was up to state and local governments to pay for them. He also believed that relieving the suffering of the unemployed was solely up to local governments and private charities.
By 1932 the unemployment rate had soared past 20 percent. Thousands of banks and businesses had failed. Millions were homeless. Roosevelt later created a large-scale temporary jobs program during the winter of 1933–34. The Civil Works Administration employed more than four million men and women at jobs from building and repairing roads and bridges, parks, playgrounds and public buildings to creating art. Unemployment, however, persisted at high levels. That led the administration to create a permanent jobs program, the Works Progress Administration. The W.P.A. began in 1935 and would last until 1943, employing 8.5 million people and spending $11 billion as it transformed the national infrastructure, made clothing for the poor, and created landmark programs in art, music, theater and writing. Roosevelt’s efforts to assert government control over the economy were frustrated by Supreme Court rulings that overturned key pieces of legislation. In response, Roosevelt made the misstep of trying to “pack” the Supreme Court with additional justices. Congress rejected this 1937 proposal and turned against further New Deal measures, but not before the Social Security Act creating old-age pensions went into effect.
Brightening economic prospects were dashed in 1937 by a deep recession that lasted from that fall through most of 1938. The new downturn rolled back gains in industrial production and employment, prolonged the Depression and caused Roosevelt to increase the work relief rolls of the W.P.A. to their highest level ever. The reason Rooselvelt's efforts are denounced is because some people think government-created jobs are a worse evil than enduring the Great Depression. | |
|
| | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by nasadude:said by pnh102:.... However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. .... got any links or citations to back up that claim about taxing the rich not raising revenue? that statement appears ludicrous on it's face. Obviously, Bush's tax cuts were great for the economy as we can see by the wonderful prosperity and happiness all around us today. with regard to your comments on FDR's policies, you are doing nothing more than parroting right wing talking points. So your claiming that only Bush tax cuts are responsible for the economy, not the wreck less lending, forced by CRA, and other liberal groups. If anything Bush should have cut more, but i am sure the liberal geniuses stopped him every time. I guess liberals are as ineffective as they claim, since all the fault lies on Bush.
--
You better not pout, you better not cry, I am telling you why Jesus Christ is coming to town..
| |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Do nothing Congress said by DaveDude:So your claiming that only Bush tax cuts are responsible for the economy, not the wreck less lending, forced by CRA, and other liberal groups. ... no, I'm not claiming the Bush tax cuts are solely or even mainly responsible. It's just that for those on the right, tax cuts apparently fix everything: recession? tax cuts! economy doing great? tax cuts! I'm just trying to make the point that the tax cuts did not keep this wreck from happening.
oh, by the way, the CRA being the cause of the housing bubble/collapse is another right wing talking point and is totally bogus.
In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You are right, he IS just parroting the right wing talking points. I seem to recall that was just spewed out on Fox News Channel the other day too. What many of these high paid idiots forget is that FDR was in a different era and time than we are in today. SO much has changed since then and the economy had become more of a global economy than ever before. So, to compare FDR to today is just foolish and quite honestly, amateurish at best. Many of today's so-called experts simply open up a history book, find the closest example, and then regurgitate it in order to collect their paychecks.
But anyway...
Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand, are not simply to blame for the trouble we're in today. To think so is simply foolish as well. Go back to when they were implemented, remove them, and let the cards fall again, we'd still be in the same place we are today. There are plenty of things that Bush and his people did to f*ck up this country over the last 6 years. And, to be honest, Bush was an idiot so lets not give him that much credit. Bush was an uneducated boozer from Texas who was nothing more than a puppet for Rove and others around him. The problems of this country go far back and include a chain of leaders including Clinton, Bush Daddy, Regan, even Carter and beyond. We can also look at congress as well for many years. So, to say its the tax cuts? That's way too simple.
In this case, as well, I don't think it's up to Pnh102 to place links or anything to back up the claims... that, too, is a lazy way to get out of a conversation. This discussion is all around us and readily available for the finding. Even Obama has chose to back off on cutting the middle class tax and not raising the taxes on the rich. HOWEVER, what Obama will be doing is simply not letting the tax cuts continue.. he will let them expire so his fingerprints will not be on that paper.
I don't agree with the tax cuts.. there are many things I don't agree with such as taxing prosperity. I think we should be moving towards taxing consumption instead. However, I don't always get my way. One thing is for sure, however, is the rule that states "he who has the gold makes the rules" and when the rich people state that taxing the rich will make problems, you kinda have no choice but to listen to those people. The fact is that they already have money. The ONLY time you can get any of that money, to matter, is when they circulate it. If they chose to sit on that money, what do you think is going to happen? ... you have to listen to the kings as the president is just a tiny man compared to them. They're basically stating what will happen and that is that they will sit on their money and that WILL hurt!
In order to turn this around, it's going to take a long time.. the only way a tiny man can hurt a giant is to do it so slow they don't realize it's even happening at their feet.
As much as Obama actually is inspiring in his ideas, the fact is that I believe he will be almost as effective as Carter was and not by his own doing. Obama's time is just not really the right time. He has a tough, and most likely, a failed road a head of him - again, not by his own doing. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. What we're really living, today, is a new kind of civil war. Only, this war is not fought with guns and neighbors.. it's fought with money and classes. | |
|
| | |  markwp2001SpreadheadPremium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | said by pnh102:said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement. Didn't Clinton raise taxes on the rich? How'd the economy do during his administration? 
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Do nothing Congress hell, even Reagan raised taxes on the rich. | |
| | | | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: Do nothing Congress said by nasadude:hell, even Reagan raised taxes on the rich. Where are all these links, I guess your talking left wing talking points probably heard on CNN? Oh Reagan was a democrat before his party left him. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Do nothing Congress I stand corrected, reagan didn't raise taxes on the rich, but he did raise taxes:
»www.democraticunderground.com/di···x1755779
The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
and while I'm at it, about that crap that tax cuts increase revenues:
According to a United States Department of the Treasury non-partisan economic study, the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, as a whole, significantly reduced (~-1% of GDP) government tax receipts. Separated out, however, it is clear that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was a massive (~-3% of GDP) decrease in revenues (the largest tax cuts ever enacted), while other tax bills had neutral or, in the case of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, significant (~+1% of GDP) government revenue-enhancing effect..."
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics | |
|
| | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by markwp2001:said by pnh102:said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement. Didn't Clinton raise taxes on the rich? How'd the economy do during his administration? Did 911 happen during the Clinton adminstration ?
Did the CRA have the power it did during the Clinton years ?
How is taking money out of circulation , increase spending ?
--
You better not pout, you better not cry, I am telling you why Jesus Christ is coming to town..
| |
| | | | | | markwp2001SpreadheadPremium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS | Re: Do nothing Congress said by DaveDude:How is taking money out of circulation , increase spending ? Huh?
It's awesome how one mention of Clinton sends right wing wackos into a sputtering mess 
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. | |
| | | | | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
1 edit | Re: Do nothing Congress said by markwp2001:said by DaveDude:How is taking money out of circulation , increase spending ? Huh? It's awesome how one mention of Clinton sends right wing wackos into a sputtering mess I think you got it wrong, quoting macro-economies from my liberal professor, makes "liberals think you are a right wing wacko". When you take temperature out of a room, does it get warmer ? I guess basic math is now right wing...
--
You better not pout, you better not cry, I am telling you why Jesus Christ is coming to town..
| |
|
| | | | | | | said by DaveDude:Did 911 happen during the Clinton adminstration ? No, 911 happened because of US action/policy from Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter.
In both international and economic policy you need to take a good 30 year view to really see good cause/effect and trending.
Our issues span both Republican and Democrat presidencies and congresses. Plenty of blame to go around, but I place more blame on the Congress than any one presidency. Our politicians need to stop being politicians and go back to being working representative statesmen. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by markwp2001:Didn't Clinton raise taxes on the rich? How'd the economy do during his administration? But even Bill Clinton knew that raising taxes on the rich to pre-Carter levels (70% or more) was a bad idea. He only raised taxes to 40%. As pointed out in a previous post, taxes were raised to the 70% range in the mid 1930s and the economy took a huge hit as a result.
To be fair to Clinton, he wasn't really that liberal, especially when it came to spending. I put him more in the "liberal lite" range.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| said by pnh102:said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement. The gun sales went up because there were strong rumor with uneducated hillbillies that Obama was going to take all their guns away. These people truely believed the republican lies.
The idea of giving huge tax breaks to the rich has never worked. History shows the money never trickles down or helps the economy grow. Obama is trying the opposite of everything Republicans have failed at.
War will never solve anything except make us more bankrupt.
What this country really needs is a real conservative, unfortunately the party that pretends to be conservative has never delievered in their entire history. Every Republican president did deficit spending and was a complete neocon.
The best part about Obama is he was more conservative than McCain and his socialist agenda. If you don't think so watch the debates. McCain promised everyone everything while Obama wanted to implement real plans.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! | |
|
| | wvcaverPremium
join:2005-04-17
Millersburg, OH | said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. Why not ? It worked blaming Bush ! | |
| | | |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Do nothing Congress said by wvcaver:said by Mike:You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. Why not ? It worked blaming Bush ! He said look like a fool, not blame the fool. | |
|
| | | | Give it time. The media turns will eventually turn on Obama. The media thrives on ratings and negativity. | |
|
| | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by DaveDude:Well with Congresses lowest rating ever recorded, how could you expect anything. Could we starting blaming Obama now ? He said he wanted to stop investments, and tax the rich. How is that going to spur growth ? he did not say that quit lying. | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | How About Upload Speeds? I think any broadband measurement should be measured by the lowest maximum transfer rate allowed in either direction. So a 20Mbps/768kbps would be considered a 768kbps connection.
With the mismatch in symmetry, we see false speeds being marketed that really can't be provided without significant throttling and/or bandwidth limits. | |
| | | | Re: How About Upload Speeds? I'm so with you there. At minimum, we should be offered 1.5 Mbps up on the faster tiers we purchase. | |
|
| | Nothing will change their minds at all with the lobbyists "Welcome," to the Corporate States of America, where you're only alternative for internet is landline DSL and Internet Protocol Television and Cable Internet, unreliable Digital Phone, through the cable companies, and their slow shared bandwidth Cable Node Networks, on the Utility Poles, or overprice Fiber Optics and Wireless Internet, and the dark ages of Dial Up Internet. Which is slower than me taking a &&&&. Nothing, will change of this in America sad but true, and that's if the Lobbyists have their way in Washington D.C. at the FCC Headquarters throwing a Revenge of the Nerds party with Kevin Martin, as Gilbert and other ones, will be joining him soon a new sequel is coming out I guess with all of them in the movie.:] lol | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | Do nothing, Congress! Please just leave the industry alone. This isn't a political issue and shouldn't ever be. Leave BUSINESS alone. | |
| |
See 34 replies to this post | |
 mb
join:2000-07-23
Washington, NJ | AMOK Capitalism has run Amok... | |
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: AMOK said by mb:Capitalism has run Amok... Heck, it's a drunken fool streaking across a football field in the middle of a game. I ain't gonna tackle it. | |
|
| | Here's little rhyme from history thats show it still extists Once upon time there was a inventor with the last time bell with where his company was getting evil ambitions and no one could tell his founded American Telephone and Telegraph and back then the Department of Justice couldn't even tell the was born and and charged did rate increases daily and no one could even tell then all of sudden people where complaining to department of justice and the peoples bills where show and tell the bell system was formed because antitrust laws being violated 2005 ma bell was born again with her annoying commercials for show and tell and then the patriot act was used by ma bell for spying on people for show and tell to n.s.a which says hey S.A. wanna become a monopoly again give your show and tell ill never tell you broke the law of antitrust laws the overpriced service on continues well the cable companies shows and tell their customers they services are cheaper on tv with show and tell which no one believes ma bell with her show and tell with their bills and that is what reborn rise again amen | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Here's little rhyme from history thats show it still extists Send me your address and I'll send you a box of punctuation. Once you sprinkle it on that post I'll try to read it again.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | Please use some punctuation. | |
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:8 | We're Still Bickering Over Minimum Definition Of 'Broadband' quote:
We're Still Bickering Over Minimum Definition Of 'Broadband'Of course either would be better than the current minimum definition for broadband: 768kbps. That was only just recently bumped from 200kbps by the FCC after years of prodding.
Too bad, because any communications engineer knows how to define broadband, and the difference between it and baseband. Unfortunately, the general public has misconceived the meaning of the term broadband, resulting in it meaning (too them) something to do with data rate or throughput (other terms that should be used, which the general public again misconceives when they try to define bandwidth; when in reality it has nothing to do data rate or throughput (or speed or bandwidth for the technically incorrect and un-astute).
Perhaps this is the biggest reason for problems defining the term 'broadband' - it already has a definition in this field of expertise, and means something entirely different (opposite to baseband - a digital data carrier that has been multiplied or moved up in frequency from its base freqency range, so it can be accomodated in the transmission medium). Give it another (incorrect) definition in this field, and you will only dilute the meaning. I suggest that any regulations be written with the proper industry terms, so the laws can actually be followed? Perhaps write the law to regulate the minimum rate that can be called 'high-data rate' internet services? This would allow the law to actually be followed, by the people that it will be written for.
Yeah - I know I'm going to be hammered by the laymen (and ladies) for suggesting this, so bring it on! Especially considering I have never complained about naming this website BroadbandReports.com. I won't be reading any of the replies, however, because if you know me, you know how much it will pain me to do so. | |
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: We're Still Bickering Over Minimum Definition Of 'Broadband' This reminds me about 'sex'. This word has become synonymous with fornication, yet it never originally included this definition.
Come to think of it, just about everything reminds me about sex.  | |
| | | |  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
1 edit | Heres a Layman def to use
15Mbit bothways or faster
appendix X
That which was called BroadBand by laymen will hince forth be called
decently Fast internet
and that which is slower than "decently Fast internet" shall be called indecently slow internet and you must be over 30 to use "indecently slow internet" if someone under 30 uses "indecently slow internet" their ISP is to pay them for pain and suffering | |
| |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Actually I've been working with comms technology for nearly 10 years, so I'm not going to hammer you in any way on that regard. I'll just call you pedantic and a dork for not accomodating the 'laymen's' definition of broadband when reciting your geeky speech which has been done hundreds or more times on dozens of other forums with similar derision from similar people to me | |
|
 reub2000Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | who cares? If you have an internet connection at a certain speed, does it really make a big difference whether or not it is classified as broadband?
--
My pbase gallery | |
| Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Mediacom
| Ridiculous. It ought to be 15 megabits downstream and 1 megabit upstream MINIMUM for a broadband definition. With high-definition video and online storage / backup solutions becoming de-facto it is absolutely ABSURD to classify even 1.5 megabits as "broadband".
Get a clue, you overpaid yuppies. | |
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Yet another welfare program? The only reason anyone is "bickering" over the "minimum definition", is so they can lobby to tax the rest of us to fund their particular subsidy program or "green job" pork.
The same type of people forever claim we have "47 million uninsured" and are always redefining the "poverty line", so as to make sure our schools serve enough free lunches and they can buy enough union votes. In my neighborhood, the "poor" have huge government apartments, drive huge new SUVs, have big flat-screen TV's, and yes, they have broadband.
Broadband, of any speed, is not necessary for living. There is no need to subsidize it. There is no application that makes it a requirement for anyone's household, and we already have a federal tax in place to "wire the schools".
People choose to live in rural settings, just as some of us choose to pay more to live in urban settings. If "broadband" costs more on the farm, so be it. Are the country folks going to subsidize my rent? | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Yet another welfare program? The Dems will rule for at least the next 2 yrs and welfare to buy minority voters will be the order of the day. Look for a definition of broadband to be listed as a life necessity and look for computer handouts and Internet access for the inner cities. | |
| | |  rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: Yet another welfare program? Once again showing the readers here how "white" and single minded you are. With people like you do you really think your party will make any gains in 2010? | |
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Change "Dems" to "Repubs", "welfare" to "simulated tax cuts" and "minority" to "suburban" and that's what we've had from the current administration. I guess it all depends on which side of the handout you're on.
Sadly, this discussion has been buried in inane political swill.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | The "country folk" probably pay more for utilities and have higher property taxes than most in the cities who "rent". Your attitude that only those who live in the city should be entitled to these services is the problem. People who live in town generally have a choice of at least 2 forms of broadband -- DSL & Cable modem. Many who live in rural areas don't have any options except dialup or satellite -- neither of which should qualify as "broadband".
Any infrastructure build up should hit the unserved areas first and not simply give those who already have options yet another one.
said by elray:People choose to live in rural settings, just as some of us choose to pay more to live in urban settings. If "broadband" costs more on the farm, so be it. Are the country folks going to subsidize my rent? | |
|
| ssexton71Premium
join:2006-06-22
Delray Beach, FL |  What's the point?
First, there is the problem, that most (all?) of the current high speed services in the U.S. are offered on a best effort basis. So your 12 Mbps service could measure a slowly 512 Kbps, yet the provider could still label it high-speed.
Second, there is the issue of traffic shaping, such as 'optimizing' for web/email, throttling torrents, etc., which makes it hard to determine the 'real' (physical) line speed.
So my point is, just because the brochure says you'll get speed X, doesn't make it so. Without some sort of legislation that actually holds companies accountable for making misleading claims, regulating the actual number is pointless. | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: What's the point? Well said. | |
|
| | Isn't the cable Company already doing this? I could have sworn I have seen Comcast advertising pretty much already saying this but I could be wrong
"The cable industry wants a faster standard definition of broadband to highlight the slower speed of line-distance limited DSL in many markets" | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Isn't the cable Company already doing this? The funny part of that is Comcast's top speed in this system is equal to AT&T's DSL, and they usually can't even push it that far in practice.
It's all marketing, and we are not the customers. Congress is.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
CB0
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY | Ummm... If I had to classify what broadband was I would say a connection that's 10/10 at the very least. That's 10 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload folks. As far as I know, 1.5 Mbps is pretty much a T1 line. I'm a Road Runner user...I'm on Turbo. I pay for 15/768. Speed tests are always good, never really found a need for more upload than I have right now for what I do. I'm sure the day is coming where it will be crucial for me but not yet. A real set of plans and prices that would sound good to me would be:
RR Basic: 5/5 for $39.99
RR Standard: 10/10 for $44.99
RR Turbo: 20/20 for $54.99
RR Extreme: 50/50 $64.99 | |
|  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Greed It's greed that is keeping us hindered. | |
| trish2
join:2008-03-24
Laurens, SC | Minimum definition of Broadband The minimum definition of broadband should be one gigabit in both directions without caps, restrictions, and other fluff. make the competition play catch-up. | |
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Sorry to poop on your party but... 768k is fine for a definition of "high speed internet". Not broadband, ISPs have ditched that term awhile ago. High speed internet.
768/384 and under 175ms of latency to a panel of major sites (Google, Yahoo, Live.com and OpenDNS would be a decent panel) should be the definition of "high speed internet".
Let's face it: you can do everything on the internet currently available on a 768/384k cnnection. No, you can't do it in high-def, but it's easy for ISPs to provide such a connection, which when it comes down to it is what counts. You can do video streaming, music listening, gaming, voice and video over IP over such a connection. And, if you leave your computer on overnight, online backup works, too.
Note: this 768/384 is subject to upward change every two years by 100%. So in 2010 the minimum rate for "high speed internet" has to be 1.5/768. In 2012, 3/1.5. Note that this is a minimum; below this, companies can't call their service high-speed. Above, they can have service.
Yes, by this scale, I have high speed internet over cable, and over my cell phone some of the time. But th "light" tiers of DSL and cable aren't "hgh speed" so their upload capacity must be upgraded. 128k is really lame when you try to share stuff and make the internet a truly two-way conversation.
Additionally, ISPs must base their speed claims upon 5th percentile speed readings...so people must be able to get, with an average setup, advertised speeds the vast majority of the time. They also need to be held accountable for their advertising...I'm looking at you cable operators...so that, in areas with 10 Mbit DSL, cable can't say "3x fater than DSL" on a 5 Mbit tier, basing their advertising on a tier that's less costly than the cableco offers...and less speedy than what the telco can provide.
What do y'all think?
Oh, and this is from a person who has 8/2 to his apartment in town, 512/??? to his parents' house two miles from town, 768-1.5/250-500 to his cell phone 95% of the time.
P.S. Symmetric HSI is hard to do over current technologies...
ADSL2+ goes up to 24/1 or thereabouts
DOCSIS 1.1 goes up to 38/10
2.0 goes up to 38/30
3.0 channel-bonds...Comcast's implementaton bonds 3/1 (DS/US)
WiMAX is asymmetric 10:1 in consumer implementations
HSPA is asymmetric: 7.2/1.8
EvDO is asymmetric: 3.1/1.8
Granted, fiber is easily a symmetric tech, though BPON and GPON are respectively 4:1 and 2:1 asymmetric. But the fact is that end-users are still very much internet consumers for the most part. The only big data they send is e-mail. Sad but true. So yes, I'd rather have a 15/2 connection than a 3/3 connection. Though I'll take 4/2 over 6/1 any day of the week, and I'll bet most people would. Heck, I'll take 30/15 over 20/20 for the same price... | |
| | |
Core0000Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY | It.. "it makes you wonder how we're going to reach any kind of consensus on how to actually improve things."
It really does... | |
|  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Who gives a crap? The country is in collapse and the gov't shouldn't be spending 2 seconds on what defines broadband.
So who cares. Define it as 10Mb, it's not going to change anything. People will still have what they have and buy what they feel like buying. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
