republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
What's The U.S. Doing Wrong With Broadband?
NY Times continues their exploration of our broadband woes...
by Karl Bode Thursday 12-Mar-2009 tags: business · Op/Ed
We've been pretty hard on Saul Hansell of the New York Times for a series of pieces on U.S. broadband, that seemed to be downplaying the problems that plague the industry in order to subtly argue against government regulation.

In parts two and three of his series, the Times columnist does a better job exploring how other countries have improved broadband because government actually got involved -- something that doesn't happen here for a number of reasons, not least of which is that industry has convinced the public that absolutely all regulation is akin to killing puppies and unavoidably ends in failure. Though that just masks the real reason why government involvement is so hated: lower revenues.

The short answer is that broadband deployment in those countries was spurred by a combination of heavy government involvement, subsidies and lower corporate profits that may be tough for the economic and political system in the United States to accept...

Of course if government (however unlikely in the minds of many) actually got a broadband policy right, a major result would be broader competition, which would hit carriers in the pocketbooks. So the question then becomes: why haven't we even tried to create a national broadband policy?

Sure, it's partially thanks to the Milton Friedman free market principles that suggest utopia is achieved by government remaining on the sidelines. But this isn't a free market, it's a government-subsidized duopoly, where the largest companies get preferential treatment, and are often rewarded for failure. Not only that, they often write the very laws regulating them, enforced by regulators who previously worked at the carriers they're now overseeing.

And we're shocked that we're middle of the pack in speed, prices and coverage?

The real reason we have no broadband policy isn't because we, as a society, have embraced a particular hands-off "philosophy." It's because incumbent lobbyists have a stranglehold on the nation's government, allowing them to kill distasteful policies in the metaphorical cradle. They've also been able to gloss over coverage and competitive gaps by withholding penetration data from the public (with the FCC's help, if you ask our friend Drew Clark of Broadband Census).

Companies like AT&T and Verizon, via public relations magicians like Issue Dynamics, operate some of the most sophisticated lobbying operations on the planet, across any industry. Through farmed think tank science and even artificial consumer advocacy groups, they've managed to divert, derail, and distort substantive discourse on this subject for more than a decade -- convincing us that no policy is the best policy. The facts show otherwise, no matter how vigorously they're massaged, re-arranged, or manipulated.

If you're looking for the heart of the problem with American broadband, look on K Street.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

inferno

join:2008-07-06

Government needs to pass net neutrality!

Discuss...
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: Government needs to pass net neutrality!

The kinda did I think. In the stimulus bill there is a net neutrality for all ISPs that get money from it. I say the Gov should ether do the free wireless thing it was talking about(that way there would be more competition) OR make it not only legal but encourage city to make their own cable or dsl or W/E internet for the people that live their to subscribe to. It most likely would not have the same speed as the D3 thing, it would cost less than some calbecos, and have no throttle(and maybe even to cap,) it makes more competition thus making them(calbecos) think they may want to lower their own price.

knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
said by inferno:

Discuss...
3 Words to describe the problem.

Greed, Greed, and oh; more Greed
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data

FBGuy
yippee ki yay
Premium
join:2005-03-19

indeed.

Though that just masks the real reason why government involvement is so hated: lower revenues.
could not have said it better myself.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

nothing

that's right, what the U.S. is doing wrong with broadband is NOTHING; as in the corporately owned government of the U.S. is doing absolutely NOTHING to promote or ensure affordable, widely available, advanced broadband.

Note: there is an incredible amount of hot air expended in Washington regarding broadband, which is technically speaking something, but I don't count that as useful.

17th in the world is what you apparently get when the "free market works".

anonname3

@comcast.net

Re: nothing

said by nasadude:

that's right, what the U.S. is doing wrong with broadband is NOTHING; as in the corporately owned government of the U.S. is doing absolutely NOTHING to promote or ensure affordable, widely available, advanced broadband.

Note: there is an incredible amount of hot air expended in Washington regarding broadband, which is technically speaking something, but I don't count that as useful.

17th in the world is what you apparently get when the "free market works".
The U.S.A. is far from a free market. This is not an opinion but a fact.

Government involvement will always be required unless we want monopolies or cartels running around. The thing is that this is like food. You can die of iron overdose but it is not good to not get any iron in your diet either. The problem lies with hitting the right spot of balance. The key to most things in life is balance.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: nothing

nothing you said changes the fact that in large part the U.S. standing in the industrialized world is due to minimum to no regulation of the broadband industry, resulting in a monopoly/duopoly market.

the 1996 telecom bill was a good start, but almost nothing in that bill ever got enforced and was essentially ignored by the incumbents. then, of course, we got brand X, followed by the FCC decision that fiber would not be subject to line sharing (oops, I take back that NOTHING remark: in this case the government helped ensure the lack of competition in the market).

I agree there is a correct mix of "free market" and govt regulation, but we are so far from this correct mix that we lag all other major industrialized nations in broadband metrics.
number_one

join:2001-11-30
Midlothian, VA

Re: nothing

said by nasadude:

I agree there is a correct mix of "free market" and govt regulation, but we are so far from this correct mix that we lag all other major industrialized nations in broadband metrics.
You're overstating the negatives of capitalism. Massive government regulation (i.e. socialism) would not solve the problem at all and could even make things worse. What is it with everyone making capitalism and American-style free markets their whipping boys today? There are plenty of problems with any type of society, and history has especially shown us the myriad problems that occur (and are still occurring) with the socialist and communist governments around the world despite the grandiose claims of many bashers of all things American.

Any way, back to the topic at hand. What many people don't seem to even mention passingly is a VERY important factor in broadband penetration and availability. This factor is the geographic size of a nation (as in land mass). It's great to talk about all sorts of other variables but it's pretty obvious that a country 30-40 times the size of most other industrialized nations is going to have a harder time with broadband adoption. Sure, there are plenty of factors out there, but let's look at everything fairly and not single out one particular variable. Otherwise you're just engaging in political maneuvering.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: nothing

said by number_one:

You're overstating the negatives of capitalism. Massive government regulation (i.e. socialism) ...
Wow. You just accused "nasadude" of overstating something ... and proceed to overstate the opposite.

Placing greater expectations on broadband providers seems commensurate with their use of monopolistic local franchises, easements, right of ways, etc.

Or, another way to look at it is that it's far from a "free market" today. And, we have a history of socializing markets that are deemed essential, or in large part a quality-of-life issue.

said by number_one:

This factor is the geographic size of a nation (as in land mass)
That didn't stop us from investing in a national highway system starting in the '50s. It would be very interesting to know what our ranking was compared to other nations in the '60s.

The challenge of geographic size is exactly why the transportation market was heavily moderated ("socialized") back then. It was recognized that a "free market" (toll roads) couldn't deliver.

Mark
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: nothing

said by amigo_boy:

The challenge of geographic size is exactly why the transportation market was heavily moderated ("socialized") back then. It was recognized that a "free market" (toll roads) couldn't deliver.

Mark
Exclusive monopoly from the state government and $10 a mile toll and then it could deliver. You can always jack up prices to highway robbery level, someone will pay it no matter what (insurance company for ambulance or local PD).
number_one

join:2001-11-30
Midlothian, VA
said by amigo_boy:

Wow. You just accused "nasadude" of overstating something ... and proceed to overstate the opposite.
How exactly did I "overstate" anything? Nasadude was implicitly trashing the American capitalist system by stating that we "lag all other major industrialized nations". It is clear that the "other" nations he is talking about are not practicing what we are calling "free market" economics (not even close), so I was simply pointing out that there are a lot more factors than just the economic policy.

I think it is far from clear that the over-arching reason America lags behind other countries in broadband adoption is a capitalist, free market, low regulation philosophy. As you have said yourself, America is not really practicing true "free market" principles, so how can we blame everything on free market principles?

said by amigo_boy:

And, we have a history of socializing markets that are deemed essential, or in large part a quality-of-life issue.
True, but not all of these "socialized" markets were successful, and there are important differences between things like roadways (which truly are essential for our basic standard of living) versus broadband internet (which is important but can hardly be considered essential to everyone's standard of living). It is this very type of distinction that is crucial to making the right kinds of decisions as our country moves forward. Casually going down the path of socialism for things that really are NOT essential is just going to centralize power and eventually take away consumer choice rather than make things better. It's nice to think that we all should be entitled to broadband, but the reality is that the money has to come from somewhere, so socializing markets in the end means that the taxpayer pays for it but has little choice in how the government actually implements the infrastructure. We've seen plenty examples of this with health care in other countries. And before someone brings up how "bad" things are in American health care, why is it that so many rich people from other countries come here when they need a critical procedure done?
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: nothing

said by number_one:

It is clear that the "other" nations he is talking about are not practicing what we are calling "free market" economics (not even close),...
And then:

said by number_one:

... As you have said yourself, America is not really practicing true "free market" principles, so how can we blame everything on free market principles?
Maybe we're practicing "free market" principles more than those other nations? To our detriment?

said by number_one:

said by amigo_boy:

And, we have a history of socializing markets that are deemed essential, or in large part a quality-of-life issue.
True, but not all of these "socialized" markets were successful, ...
That's always a matter of perspective. Whether you are positively or negatively affected by moderation of an otherwise "free" market. Whenever society moderates a market there are winners and losers.

One example which comes to mind is health care. We've socialized goods and services by setting standards to levels which wouldn't exist in a truly free market of willing buyers and sellers. The beneficiaries of this moderated market are those who can afford these artificially expensive goods and services. They don't have to concern themselves with the caveat emptor which would exist in a truly free market. They can expect market outcomes that wouldn't exist in a purely raw market.

They believe this socialization of the market is working. (They even deny that it's a socialized market.). OTOH, those who can't afford these artificially expensive goods and services say it's a failure. They're denied lessor choices under penalty of prison at the pointy end of a gun.

Therefore, whether a socialized market is "successful" isn't as clear as you'd like us to believe.

Mark

kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

Re: nothing

This entire American "capitalism" is an utter BS, a complete lie - this is NOT CAPITALISM but merely a CORPORATISM.

The most pathetic part is when people eat up the BS about 'free market' etc the top 1% keeps them feeding with in order to keep them under control.


Things have to and WILL change VERY SOON, you'll see.

The so-called lassez-faire corporatism-capitalism has royally FAILED, their golden boys robbed everybody else and ran away and now it's up to the taxpayers to fix this entire wasteland called US economy.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

1 edit

Re: nothing

said by kamm:

... this is NOT CAPITALISM but merely a CORPORATISM.
I believe distinctions like that help to fuel the predominant misunderstanding of "capitalism" and "socialism." Our system is socialized capitalism. Both business and individuals benefit from social moderation of markets.

It's legitimate to debate whether business benefits more than individuals. Or, if disparate benefit leads to "trickle-down" results. But, it's still socialized capitalism (not "corporatism," which begs for another term to describe individuals benefiting from moderated markets).

said by kamm:

The most pathetic part is when people eat up the BS about 'free market' etc the top 1% keeps them feeding with in order to keep them under control.
I agree. I'm always amazed how we have a Pavlovian reaction to certain buzz words like "free markets" or "socialism." If someone wants to avoid rationally discussing what's really happening in our system, all they have to do is toss these words into the discussion to gain control. ("You oppose 'free markets?'" "You're a 'Socialist?'").

said by kamm:

The so-called lassez-faire corporatism-capitalism has royally FAILED, their golden boys robbed everybody else and ran away and now it's up to the taxpayers to fix this entire wasteland called US economy.
IMO, our problem is that we're not good at finding balance. We grant cable companies, telcos, muni-wifi exclusive monopolies using public resources -- and then we don't demand much in return because "that would be anti-free market."

We have this schizo approach to things. We do thousands of things that aren't free-market (but pragmatic enablement of the market) and then play by rules as if "it's just a free market. We can only expect what willing buyers and sellers consent to."

Mark
jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH

3 edits
Actually we are in a free market, it is just such a free market that allows the early-bird companies that grow rapidly to take over 70-90% of the market. It is a free market that has very little regulation (including ethics). So much so that companies are free to raise prices on any competitor wishing to use their infrastructure to offer services to customers. That is why there is only one phone company in a given area (except areas that have none). That is why there is only one cable provider in a given area (except areas that have none).

The only companies that can offer such services in an area that is already served by one company is another mega-corporation.

Example: AT&T controls area X, Verizon controls area Y, and Small Business A controls small area Z. Small Business A would not even think about trying to offer services to area X using AT&T's infrastructure at wholesale because the moment they ask AT&T, their "wholesale" will suddenly be such that Small Business A could not compete in price with AT&T's offers. Small Business A would also not consider building infrastructure in area X (controlled by AT&T) because they know they do not have the capital to build rapidly, and AT&T could easily lower prices in the given area for a limited time in order to bankrupt or put Small Business A out of the area. Verizon would be the company that could compete in AT&T's area by putting up lots of capital to build their own competing infrastructure. This does not happen because most large companies have a non-verbal or written contract not to encroach on one another's areas. It does not happen because more infrastructures mean more crappy node boxes in people's yards, reducing home values. In return, the other company agrees not to compete directly with them in their areas. Hence, little consumer choice.

I have access to two broadband carriers. DSL & Cable. Nither of which even seem to have any plans to build next-gen in this area anytime soon. The speed and prices have been stagnant for almost a decade now. Just 3 miles away, my uncle has access to one: cable. He has no options. It's cable or nothing (back to dial-up? ick!).

What I think really needs to happen is the government needs to step in not to offer service but to provide consumers choices. The companies are not going to do it on their own. We need a plan similar to UTOPIA. The government and businesses put in funding to provide one fiber-optic infrastructure (eventually) in every area. That infrastructure would connect into company's current national infrastructure to provide national/global services. Connect all homes (at minimum) and businesses (at most) with this fiber optic connection. Then, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT RUN OR OFFER SERVICE OVER THE FIBER-OPTIC LINE. Instead they will appoint a company who will not be offering services to the area to operate, repair, and manage the providers. That company would, of course, get a slice of total revenues from the consumer's use to pay that company profits and for repairs. Any provider (be it AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and any smaller local businesses) who wishes to offer services to the customers on the fiber line may do so at the same wholesale price as any other provider. That would provide CHOICE. That would provide COMPETITION. That would provide a free market, but not the current exacerbated free market that favors the mega corporation.
--

- "Techie" Jim
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: nothing

said by jimbo2150:

Actually we are in a free market,
You can only arrive at that conclusion by redefining "free market" by relativistic, contemporary terms. There's nothing wrong with that -- until users of the slogan begin beating other people over the head for "opposing free markets."

There is nothing literally "free" with cities granting monopolistic franchises to businesses to provide cable, wi-fi, et. al.

Nothing "free" with the creation of easements on private property (the needs of the many outweighing the rights of the few).

So, we're really talking about "degrees" of "free" market, whether more (or less) "free" would be better.

Mark
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: nothing

said by amigo_boy:

said by jimbo2150:

Actually we are in a free market,
You can only arrive at that conclusion by redefining "free market" by relativistic, contemporary terms. There's nothing wrong with that -- until users of the slogan begin beating other people over the head for "opposing free markets."

There is nothing literally "free" with cities granting monopolistic franchises to businesses to provide cable, wi-fi, et. al.

Nothing "free" with the creation of easements on private property (the needs of the many outweighing the rights of the few).

So, we're really talking about "degrees" of "free" market, whether more (or less) "free" would be better.

Mark
To attach a wire to a pole, I need 1 million in insurance per pole, which no commercial insurance company will ever let me buy, plus a permit from the local town council, plus $100 a year for renting the pole.

Free market? bullshit!
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by jimbo2150:

I have access to two broadband carriers. DSL & Cable. Nither of which even seem to have any plans to build next-gen in this area anytime soon. The speed and prices have been stagnant for almost a decade now. Just 3 miles away, my uncle has access to one: cable. He has no options. It's cable or nothing (back to dial-up? ick!).
Lie. He can use satellite. The USA already 100% broadband coverage. There is no problems with broadband in the USA.
jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH

Re: nothing

said by patcat88 :
Lie. He can use satellite. The USA already 100% broadband coverage. There is no problems with broadband in the USA.
I knew someone was ganna go there eventually (as they always do)...

Ok, I was refering to A) relatively the same price, and B) Actually having service.
I know a couple of people living in rural areas with NO DSL or CABLE who reluctantly tried the $60-80/month satalite service and it was barely usable. Constant disconnects, near dial-up speeds most of the time, etc. Is that REALLY a viable competitor?
--

- "Techie" Jim
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: nothing

said by jimbo2150:

Is that REALLY a viable competitor?
No but "capitalism" allows you to set up your own service if you dont like it. ~ GOP
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

1 edit

Re: nothing

said by patcat88:

said by jimbo2150:

Is that REALLY a viable competitor?
No but "capitalism" allows you to set up your own service if you dont like it. ~ GOP
But, now we're back to referring to a principle which has never existed in an absolute sense. The same reasoning could have been applied to the interstate highway system. If people weren't happy with the patchwork of dirt roads that sprung up over the previous five decades, they were free to buy land, open toll roads, etc.

Instead, the Federal government stepped in and funded an interstate highway system. It benefited some people (those living nearest the planned routes) more than others. And, some industries (automakers) more than others.

But, the real losers (from a pure Libertarian perspective) were those entrepreneurs who lost a tremendous market potential for private toll roads.

It's only a tiny fraction of the population (the 1% who claim affiliation with Ayn Rand and the Libertarian political party) who complain about that exercise of socialized capitalism. Everyone else likes it (and wants more). Including those who beat others over the head with the term "socialism" like it's everyone else looking for handouts to make their lives easier.

Mark
jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH

Re: nothing

said by amigo_boy:

It's only a tiny fraction of the population (the 1% who claim affiliation with Ayn Rand and the Libertarian political party) who complain about that exercise of socialized capitalism. Everyone else likes it (and wants more). Including those who beat others over the head with the term "socialism" like it's everyone else looking for handouts to make their lives easier.

Mark
Well said!
--

- "Techie" Jim

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05

RE: Nothing

said by nasadude:

as in the corporately owned government of the U.S. is doing absolutely NOTHING to promote or ensure affordable, widely available, advanced broadband.
Since when did "affordable, widely available, advanced broadband" become an entitlement that should be offered to all in our country?

Give me a break. It's not like we're all going to die if we don't have 95%+ high speed Internet penetration in the US. This isn't a crisis, or something that's even close to being a major problem-- at most, it's a minor blip on someone's radar (and that's all it should be).

As much as I'd like to have faster, cheaper Internet service (Comcast is sucking $70 per month away from my budget just for "high speed" Internet), I have to side with the government doing nothing in this case. It just isn't worth spending the money on, and I'd rather have lower taxes and spend money where I choose than pay higher taxes and have another government service provided to all for "free".

But then again if I had my way, our government would shrink in size dramatically... Wasteful and useless organizations like the Department of Education would either be eliminated or be given a massive overhaul; handouts given to those who sit and watch soap operas instead of working would cease; and the federal government would limit itself to only providing essential services. This would likely result in dramatic tax decreases, which people could then use to pay for their own broadband connections if they so desired.
--
Save us, oh Great Obamasiah. Peggy Joseph and I both pray that You come to pay our mortgage and fill our cars with gas. (Premium please!)

Bill Dollar

join:2009-02-20
New York, NY

Re: RE: Nothing

"Since when did "affordable, widely available, advanced broadband" become an entitlement that should be offered to all in our country?"

Well, the answer to your question is, in 1996, when a bipartisan Congress passed the 1996 Telecom Act. Which states in part:

"Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas."

While "broadband" was not a term used above, the term "advanced telecommunications" is defined by the Act as "high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology"

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05

Re: RE: Nothing

And consumers already *DO* have such access, without government
interference
"assistance":
- Cable companies offer high speed services in many places across the country.
- Phone companies offer high speed services in many places across the country.
- Satellite companies offer high speed services in most places-- many that the two aforementioned services don't reach.

And for those who favor the government, err, "assisted" route:
- Many public libraries offer access to high speed Internet.
- Many public schools offer access to high speed Internet.

The simple fact is that broadband penetration in this country is just fine without substantial governmental interference in the process. In those markets that will support it (financially) it has been deployed.

Good business sense dictates that this type of stuff only be deployed where a decent return on investment is likely. If businesses won't waste their money on deployment where a profit can't be made, then why should our government waste our hard earned money-- especially when there are other viable options already available?

The simple fact is that taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted to wire Goober and Georgette's double-wide in the middle of BFE for high speed Internet.
--
Save us, oh Great Obamasiah. Peggy Joseph and I both pray that You come to pay our mortgage and fill our cars with gas. (Premium please!)
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: RE: Nothing

said by NOVA_Guy:

And for those who favor the government, err, "assisted" route:
- Many public libraries offer access to high speed Internet.
- Many public schools offer access to high speed Internet.
Even you validate the principle. Now we're just talking about a matter of degrees.

Mark
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

Re: RE: Nothing

Hardly a validation of principle. He was stating that this does exist today...more of a validation of existence.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: RE: Nothing

said by beaups:

Hardly a validation of principle. He was stating that this does exist today...more of a validation of existence.
Perhaps. If "Novaguy" wants to say socially-provided internet shouldn't exist in schools and libraries, that's fine with me. It would place him among the irrelevant fringe. The 1% of the country who take an absolute Libertarian view of "free markets."

This is how these arguments usually work. Someone who considers themselves a "libertarian" (small L) rails against some idea that government can do *more* to moderate markets for more predictable outcomes. But, that same person is perfectly comfortable with all the social moderation of markets *they* personally benefit from.

When the hypocrisy is pointed out, a tiny few will take a consistent position, saying they oppose all social moderation of markets. A position they don't want to advertise as they beat others over the head with their "free market" hyperbole because they know that only 1% of the population would support such an absolute Libertarianism. That tiny few want to appear relevant, so they don't rail against the things they personally benefit from.

OTOH, the vast majority simply utilize free-market hyperbole because it's convenient.

Odds are "Novaguy" is just among the vast (relevant) majority.

Mark
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
"fine" is not good enough... Sorry.... Putting satellite in this discussion is just simply a cop out. In some places cable companies are doing a good job of offering "advanced broadband". Nova is such a place. Other places aren't in such good shape.

Pingmeister

@198.36.95.x

approval from:
amigo_boy See Profile

said by NOVA_Guy:

The simple fact is that taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted to wire Goober and Georgette's double-wide in the middle of BFE for high speed Internet.
I guess that they don't deserve electricity and telephone service either. How did they get those services anyway? If government intervention is always bad in your black and white point of view, go disconnect them and we'll apply the savings to the deficit. Certainly that will benefit us on the whole.

Do you ever use the Metro? 395? My tax money has helped to subsidize both. I don't benefit from this, but YOU do. Do me a favor. Stop using the things that I have helped to pay for with my tax dollars. It's not fair to me.

I know many people like you, who simply refuse to acknowledge anything that isn't in your very narrow field of vision.

Maybe Goober and Georgette's son Bubba will use that broadband link to help find a cure for that polarizing fear that makes some people believe that everything is "black and white", easy and explainable with one word. It never was and never will be that easy, whether you like it or not. I know that the things like the Metro and I-395 (which I don't use, but help pay for) may or may not benefit me directly, but they will likely benefit me and many others, directly or indirectly.

I am happy to pay MY hard earned tax money to help establish and improve broadband access to rural areas, among other things. I, like you, benefit from the hard work of people who aren't lucky enough to live in a metro area.

Please go back to living inside the bubble, and stop disrespecting the taxpayers who DO recognize their responsibility to the infrastructure at large that has made it possible for people like you and me to have the quality of life that we enjoy in our country.

Stop using resources that other people pay tax money to support, and you don't. The simple fact is that my taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted on things that you benefit from, and I don't
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
said by NOVA_Guy:

Since when did "affordable, widely available, advanced broadband" become an entitlement that should be offered to all in our country?
At roughly the same time that you came to enjoy the benefits of zoning laws (restricting how your neighbor can dispose of her property, to alleviate your responsibility to purchase enough property to protect yourself from your neighbors' choices)?

At roughly the same time you benefit from the SEC moderating the stock market, reducing your responsibility to exercise "due diligence" in a purely free market?

Or, roughly the same time as state-creation of corporate charters to facilitate commerce through the social creation of a fictional (yet legal) "person" to stand as the fall guy if officers and investors make poor business choices?

We don't have a "free market" the way some people conveniently use the term.

Mark
beaups

join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH

Re: RE: Nothing

You use these arguments over and over. Where did he state to "free market" in the post?

There are many opinions on this issue, but the arguments of "let the free markets sort it out" and "the government shouldn't waste my money on this" are very different from one another.

Should there be more regulation? Maybe. Should there be more oversight? Probably. Do I want to pay MY TAX # to run fiber to someone's home on the side of a mountain. HELL NO.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

1 edit

Re: RE: Nothing

said by beaups:

Where did he state to "free market" in the post?
C'mon. You're not even trying to be serious. "Novaguy's" post was a juxtaposition of government services/intervention versus private markets.

said by beaups:

Do I want to pay MY TAX # to run fiber to someone's home on the side of a mountain. HELL NO.
That's called mobocracy (or "socialized capitalism," which is the system we have). There's nothing wrong with arguing whether some instance of taking from some to give to others is worthwhile. But, that's different than dismissing it on grounds that it violates some kind of principle ("nobody's entitled to....").

As I've already demonstrated with examples, we (you included) benefit from socially-created entitlements (moderations to what would exist if Darwinian, "free markets" ruled the day). Beating people over the head that more such moderations violate some kind of absolute principle (like stealing your money) is just a cheap way to avoid the issue. Worse, it is a form of self-deception.

Mark
number_one

join:2001-11-30
Midlothian, VA

Re: RE: Nothing

said by amigo_boy:

Beating people over the head that more such moderations violate some kind of absolute principle (like stealing your money) is just a cheap way to avoid the issue. Worse, it is a form of self-deception.
The fact that such "moderations" may not violate some kind of "absolute principle" doesn't mean that there can't be an overriding principle of enough is enough. Going down the "moderation" road with no limits is precisely how you end up with a communist regime where everything is supposed to be done for the good of the country but instead ends up creating a super-poverty ruled by an elite few.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: RE: Nothing

said by number_one:

The fact that such "moderations" may not violate some kind of "absolute principle" doesn't mean that there can't be an overriding principle of enough is enough. ...
I completely agree. I'm not arguing for "everything should be moderated" just like I'm sure those who trot out "free market" reasoning aren't arguing that everything should be subject to true, raw, Darwinian market forces.

I don't see anything wrong with objecting to a proposed moderation of markets (regulation, subsidy, etc.) based upon perceived lack of utility. Unfortunately, that's not what we usually see. Those who fancy themselves libertarians trot out "free market" hyperbole as if anything that hinders market forces is "socialism" and "bad."

Mark
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

Re: RE: Nothing

sorry I couldn't help you out here amigo_boy, got stuck in a late meeting all afternoon.

would have been great to double team these guys.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
I'll agree with what you have written except to say that "advanced broadband", whatever that is, should be offered too all of our country just the same as electricity...

We really DO need a smaller government...
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Number one thing they are doing wrong.....

Is allowing these companies to continue to purchase them, steal tax payer money, and commit out right fraud and not being held accountable.

Bottom line is broadband needs to become a nation wide utility that reaches everyone that desires it. And no, not broadband as defined today (200kbps) but real broadband with FTTH. We can start with what was promised and defined as broadband back in 96 (45mbps/45mbps).

Content providers need to be 100% separated from broadband providers and the network needs to be 1 network nationwide that reaches anyone and everyone that wants it. Any content provider (ISP, VOIP, IPTV, future service) that wants to lease the line can reach any customer anywhere in the US that is willing to purchase from said company.

See 13 replies to this post
Core0000
Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY
Reviews:
·New Wave Communi..

...

If the Federal Government could actually do something right, and actually were technically up to date.. isn't Washington still lacking in highspeed internet or something like that?

If they could actually get involved and not make matters worse,there are a number of situations that probably need to be delt with.. anyways I'd be all for it.

From experience in my few short years on earth, this does not seem to be the case though. Call me gun shy.. So I'd rather see them stay out.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

dysfunctional / nonfunctional competition

the sprit of regulatory reform was to get telcos & cable co's into each other's markets and that would bring (supposedly) robust competition amonst last mile providers.

however, the reality & history is much different than the intent. companies such as comcast, time warner, cox, qwest have decided to compete on their own terms which put the future success of the companies at stake. consolidation left overlapping vaccuums of competition and MORE incentive to substantially change the terms of serice which were NOT in the customer's best interest (particularly for broadband).

screw the NY times, they always seem to get things wrong.. they don't seem to have educated staff on the ball anymore... so why waste your time with anything they have to say.

any and all future monies distributed from the FED should have strings sttached to remedy ALL of these problems in addition to solving deployment and other issues of rurual black holes & affordability.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

REA

Pretty easy, if you get electricity, you get broadband, end of story. We already went through all the "rural black hole" stuff 60 years ago with electricity. Go read about that.
act eth guy

join:2009-01-21
Downs, KS

Re: REA

Maybe they should take the broadband black holes away from the large corps that dont give a damn about them and turn them over to smaller independents or cooperative telcos that have give a damn if Joe Blow that lives 25 miles out in the country gets broadband or not.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Whats wrong?

Uhmmm lets see:
1. Caps
2. Low upload speeds
3. Fibre products WITHOUT symmetrical speeds
4. Messing with P2P
5. Pay per byte in trials
6. CORPORATE GREED!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee

kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

Spoken like a true paid corporate mouthpiece...

..., Saul Hansell(out):

"The short answer is that broadband deployment in those countries was spurred by a combination of heavy government involvement, subsidies and lower corporate profits that may be tough for the economic and political system in the United States to accept..."

Yes, hat's the point: YOU LIE AGAIN because it's NOT THE US, it's ONLY YOUR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS WHO WILL NEVER ALLOW this.
--
said by bicker:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.

beejay

@rcn.com

Three Word Solution

The three word solution that the Telecoms have banished from the regulatory lexicon as often as they could get away with it--

Local Loop Unbundling

Ageeah

@rr.com

Nice Thread!

There is no such thing as a "free market". The minute someone gives a job to their unqualified brother-in-law or puts a friend on a committee, or gives a contract to an acquaintance it's over. In the same vein, with campaign finance the way it is elected officials are part of the market itself, rather than ANY sort of regulatory body. There were a lot of good points in this thread. The one other thing that I would add is that the roll out of broadband is essential in terms of an informed citizenry and a solid representative democracy. To nationalize it and roll it out to all would up the ante considerably at the polls...

Sunday, 03-Jun 12:56:43 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.