• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama pushes broadband plan

This looks like a nation-wide infrastructural improvement. I'm not seeing the problem here.

It's setting the gov't in position to compete with private businesses. That's a BAD thing. Yes, I know that the gov't has done it in the past and it was a bad thing then as well.
 
It's setting the gov't in position to compete with private businesses. That's a BAD thing. Yes, I know that the gov't has done it in the past and it was a bad thing then as well.

Beyond ideological rhetoric I suspect you won't be able to objectively argue why this is a bad thing.
 
I'm confused, Obama is a tyrant because the federal government is preventing state governments from preventing local governments from building broadband infrastructure at the behest of their local constituents?
 
This thread shows that conservative hate for Obama outweighs any benefit his proposals do the populace.
 
Beyond ideological rhetoric I suspect you won't be able to objectively argue why this is a bad thing.

Given as it's playoff season, let's use a football analogy:

How would you feel if you were the Seattle Seahawks and you found out that the NFL had allowed the referees to buy the Patriots? Now you are competing against the very people who are setting and enforcing the rules. Do you think that you would get a fair game from the refs if they were in the position to make a butt-load money if the Pats won??
 
LOL!!!

The outfit that brought you the NSA and the Patriot Act want to make sure that you have the best doggone communications system they think you deserve while making sure that you have no say in what YOU think you deserve.

Classic.

I think that's a good point in the future. In this current environment I would say it doesn't really matter, given that the government is sucking raw data from my own keystrokes as we speak. Should we clamp down on that in the future, I think that would present some interesting issues surrounding what one could expect from a public internet in terms of personal security and confidentiality.
 
Why?

........

I'm a fan of actual competition and it's benefits.


now , if we choose to pursue these kind of things.. fine... but let's not call it competition, and let's not bases these models on competition.... they are not competitive... the word needs to be stricken from the conversation entirely.
( as evident by the fact that these cities can set up super fast networks that private forms are unable to)
 
Given as it's playoff season, let's use a football analogy:

How would you feel if you were the Seattle Seahawks and you found out that the NFL had allowed the referees to buy the Patriots? Now you are competing against the very people who are setting and enforcing the rules. Do you think that you would get a fair game from the refs if they were in the position to make a butt-load money if the Pats won??

I like your analogy, but I'm going to take it another way. As a fan, how much fun would it be to watch if it was just the Seahawks vs practice squad every game? Because that's what buying local internet from ILECs is like:

Do you want to go with ATT, this company ATT is merging with, or this company that rents ATT's lines?
 
Wrong. If you can see the sky, you have your choice of multiple ISPs that can provide BB.

Satellite broadband is extremely asynchronous and latency is very high. The only time its a good option is when there are simply no other options at all available.
 
It's setting the gov't in position to compete with private businesses. That's a BAD thing. Yes, I know that the gov't has done it in the past and it was a bad thing then as well.

The TVA was controversial as could be, but Southerners (who have always had the disposition of being overly fearful of government) embraced it as a good thing.
 
I'm a fan of actual competition and it's benefits.


now , if we choose to pursue these kind of things.. fine... but let's not call it competition, and let's not bases these models on competition.... they are not competitive... the word needs to be stricken from the conversation entirely.
( as evident by the fact that these cities can set up super fast networks that private forms are unable to)

Okay, walk me through a point-by-point list of what happens between the government expanding broadband to the whole country to it failing. Explain it to me like I'm a child, but without the libertarian rhetoric.
 
But of course. I want broadband, but not Obama broadband.

Right, regular broadband is like a Mercedes, while Obama broadband is like a Trabant.

Might be.

Well, there's reason to do so. The President is attempting to wedge the Federal government in between the state's prohibitive law of local ISP control.

I'm for more competition.
I'm for better broadband performance and reliability at affordable prices for the consumers.
But I'm also for Municipal and State's right to have that local ISP control as well.

Guess it puts me in the middle of all of that one way or another.
 
Okay, walk me through a point-by-point list of what happens between the government expanding broadband to the whole country to it failing. Explain it to me like I'm a child, but without the libertarian rhetoric.

well, i'll come back this evening and continue.. i'll just leave you with ..... where did i say anything about "failing"?.. and what "failing" are you talking about?

one other thing to consider... taking the Presidents example of Cedar park IA. .. or even chattanooga Tn...both are touted as cities that have municipal owned ISPs with super fast broadband access.... both have been set up for some time... both are said to have "spurred competition".
why, then, haven't other telecoms firms even come close to matching the performance and pricing of these municipal ISPs?.. why are they head and shoulders above the rest of the industry?.. why is the industry utterly failing to compete if these things are meant to spurn competition?.. private firms aren't even trying to compete in these places.( sure, some offer lesser services, but they know they aren't competitive in pricing or performance)

as I see it.. it's not about competition... it's not about offering a competitive alternative.... it's about offering something that cannot be competed with, and they are succeeding in offering such.
as a consumer, i'm good with great performance at a cheap price.... but I'm not cool with being lied to about competition.... just tell me the truth and say " we're going to do away with competition by offering a product at a price that no private firm can possibly hope to compete with."
 
Why should a city not be able to setup it's own broadband? It is not forcing cities to create their own. It will add much needed competition to the telecomms industry.

Its forcing people to not be able to tell their govts no.
 
I know. In my adorably naive way, though, infrastructure isn't left-vs-right, freedom-vs-tyranny, Federal-vs-state, it's just...infrastructure. It's one of the most required and boring services that government is expected to maintain.

Except it isnt, in the case of the federal govt. Their job is to protect states from invasion, and protect the freedom of individuals. Then the people can decide whether they want their city govt to be an ISP or not. Obama is taking away that freedom.
 
Wrong. If you can see the sky, you have your choice of multiple ISPs that can provide BB.

Even if you cant see the sky, cellular companies cover the entire nation. And they offer internet too. Most cities have at least 4 types of internet, multiple companies to purchase from, and there is nothing stopping someone who wants to run their own lines (except maybe govt saying no, whups).
 
Here it comes, the first roadblock in the internet, setup by the federal govt. And a violation of states rights. The govt has no power to control personal communications, certainly not to tell cities that they cant make laws prohibiting govts from running their own ISPs. And Obama wants to make YOU pay more taxes for it.

The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.



Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see
Have you lived in public power communities? When I was looking at living in Tacoma where the city owns the utilities they were 40% cheaper then where I am now where a private company does utilities.

I'm in favor of public internet. the experience with public utilities shows they're usually cheaper for the consumer and can break even
 
Here it comes, the first roadblock in the internet, setup by the federal govt. And a violation of states rights. The govt has no power to control personal communications, certainly not to tell cities that they cant make laws prohibiting govts from running their own ISPs. And Obama wants to make YOU pay more taxes for it.

The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.



Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see

He wants to eliminate arbitrary legal barriers to competition and you're attacking him on "big government" grounds.

Astonishing.
 
A step toward eventually running the internet in full - a la "single payer" - and instantaneously monitoring every keystroke, transaction, and communication that every American individual and business makes.
 
well, i'll come back this evening and continue.. i'll just leave you with ..... where did i say anything about "failing"?.. and what "failing" are you talking about?

Whether it is effective or not is the only standard that should be considered. Everyone needs access to the internet like everyone needs access to roads, electricity and mail delivery. If government provides it, and it works, then it's successful. If government attempts to provide those things and in the execution of it fails, then it's not successful.

one other thing to consider... taking the Presidents example of Cedar park IA. .. or even chattanooga Tn...both are touted as cities that have municipal owned ISPs with super fast broadband access.... both have been set up for some time... both are said to have "spurred competition".
why, then, haven't other telecoms firms even come close to matching the performance and pricing of these municipal ISPs?.. why are they head and shoulders above the rest of the industry?.. why is the industry utterly failing to compete if these things are meant to spurn competition?.. private firms aren't even trying to compete in these places.( sure, some offer lesser services, but they know they aren't competitive in pricing or performance)

Why aren't other telecoms competing? I don't know, why aren't rival companies successfully competing with such giants as Google or Amazon? Maybe it's no more complex than that other businesses just aren't up to the task. Regardless, if current laws are resulting in municipalities not getting the broadband they need and the government is up to the task of getting it to them, then so be it.

as I see it.. it's not about competition... it's not about offering a competitive alternative.... it's about offering something that cannot be competed with, and they are succeeding in offering such.
as a consumer, i'm good with great performance at a cheap price.... but I'm not cool with being lied to about competition.... just tell me the truth and say " we're going to do away with competition by offering a product at a price that no private firm can possibly hope to compete with."

UPS and Fedex are superior alternatives to the USPS, so if private companies are interested in competing with the government, they'll find a way.
 
Back
Top Bottom