• 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

Erod said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's the opposite of this.
 
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is about getting broadband to the people who need it, it's not Braveheart.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
He wants to eliminate arbitrary legal barriers to competition and you're attacking him on "big government" grounds.

Astonishing.
Click to expand...

He want to eliminate barriers to GOVT competing with the people. And tax you to subsidize govt ISPs.
 
jonny5 said:
Its about buying votes with your taxes, and govt control. Same as always with liberals.
Click to expand...

Pointless libertarian rhetoric. Yawn.
 
jonny5 said:
He want to eliminate barriers to GOVT competing with the people. And tax you to subsidize govt ISPs.
Click to expand...

Why should a city be barred from setting up broadband if it wants to? Why do you hate local government?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
In many markets, particularly small towns, there is only one broadband provider. A second provider, even if its a publicly owned one, is competition.
Click to expand...

My great grandfather had a friend who worked in the 1920s Who works laying electrical line out to roll communities and Western Oregon, believe it or not most of the now sprawling will laminate Valley hadn't had electricity until the late 20s. There wasn't enough market for any private company to want to invest in these towns. So finally they made public utility District and use taxpayer money to wire up these little towns for electricity, and according to my grandfather this was a 100% improvement in the lives of these real people. It really is amazing when you think that there's people live today who were born before many places in the United States have the ability to turn on the lights. And in many cases the private companies didn't want anything to do with these places because there wasn't enough market to justify the cost of laying wire and substations
 
jonny5 said:
Its about buying votes with your taxes, and govt control. Same as always with liberals.
Click to expand...

Arguments in your head must be so easy when you can just pretend the other guy is a comic book villain.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good example, but not in the way you think. They are not allowed to compete with the USPS. It wasnt until the 80s when the govt stopped banning them from package delivery that they even came into existence. And even then they require that private carriers charge more than the govt. This is what youre going to get from ObamaNet.
 
jonny5 said:
Good example, but not in the way you think. They are not allowed to compete with the USPS. It wasnt until the 80s when the govt stopped banning them from package delivery that they even came into existence. And even then they require that private carriers charge more than the govt. This is what youre going to get from ObamaNet.
Click to expand...

There is no law that says FedEx has to charge more than the USPS. They cost more because they aren't nearly as efficient.
 
Deuce said:
Arguments in your head must be so easy when you can just pretend the other guy is a comic book villain.
Click to expand...

It must be easy to think of something to post when all have to do is be snarky.
 
Deuce said:
Why should a city be barred from setting up broadband if it wants to? Why do you hate local government?
Click to expand...

Because the people DONT want them too. Why do you hate individual freedom?
 
jonny5 said:
Because the people DONT want them too. Why do you hate individual freedom?
Click to expand...

Uhh, people speak through their local government and do want them to. Do you really think everyone is thrilled with Comcast and hates the idea of Comcast having competition?
 
jonny5 said:
Good example, but not in the way you think. They are not allowed to compete with the USPS. It wasnt until the 80s when the govt stopped banning them from package delivery that they even came into existence. And even then they require that private carriers charge more than the govt.
Click to expand...

Where is this regulation? I googled this and the prices for different shipping speeds and weights vary.

jonny5 said:
This is what youre going to get from ObamaNet.
Click to expand...

Buzzwords are no replacement for an argument.
 
eohrnberger said:
Might be.



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.
Click to expand...

In your view, would you perceive the state ban on local communities providing their own internet to be unwise if not destructive of the principle of local governments being able to do what they feel is proper governance?
 
Deuce said:
"I have no support for my claim so I'll just link a bunch of random carrier regulations and pretend it supports me."
Click to expand...

I was debating someone on some point regarding the Roman empire, and in "support" of his claim he linked to a five gazillion page wall of text. I hit "ctrl f" and typed "Rome" and then "Roman." Nada.
 
Erod said:
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.
Click to expand...


They already do that and have been making those efforts since the Bush administration.
 
Deuce said:
Uhh, people speak through their local government and do want them to. Do you really think everyone is thrilled with Comcast and hates the idea of Comcast having competition?
Click to expand...

I think people in some cities dont want govt to be that competition, which is what Obama is trying to make happen.
 
Deuce said:
"I have no support for my claim so I'll just link a bunch of random carrier regulations and pretend it supports me."
Click to expand...

3-1 Price (39 USC 601(b)(1))

A letter may be carried out of the mails when the amount paid for the private carriage of the letter is at least six times the rate then currently charged for a 1-ounce single-piece First-Class Mail letter.
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid you READ.
 
Cardinal said:
Where is this regulation? I googled this and the prices for different shipping speeds and weights vary.



Buzzwords are no replacement for an argument.
Click to expand...


3-1 Price (39 USC 601(b)(1))

A letter may be carried out of the mails when the amount paid for the private carriage of the letter is at least six times the rate then currently charged for a 1-ounce single-piece First-Class Mail letter.
 
jonny5 said:
I think people in some cities dont want govt to be that competition, which is what Obama is trying to make happen.
Click to expand...

If people like Comcast then they'll choose them over the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom