• 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

Thrilla said:
here's some reading material while you ponder your mailing preferences.
https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-service-and-postal-monopoly-history.pdf

obviously you have a hard time with the fact when i bring them to you, so let's try the USPS bringing them to you and see where that gets.
Click to expand...

Is it your contention that the current communications "market" is a good example of free market competition, and that this market is producing output as efficiently as possible?
 
Zyphlin said:
I actually don't know the answer to this, so perhaps you can help me.

Is the USPS completely funded by the fee's it imposes for shipping, purchasing boxes, etc? Or does it recieve any tax payer funds to pay for it's facilities, equipment, employees, and other operating expenses?
Click to expand...

According to their financial statements they get about 2bn a year in 'capital funds' from the federal govt. And of course they dont pay federal taxes.
 
Cardinal said:
Certain government services by their very nature allow for competition and allow the quality to improve via that competition. A very straightforward example of this is mail delivery, and broadband should that competition be introduced. Obviously certain services by their physical nature competition would be logistically...challenging. This would include the dmv, water, gas and power. Anyway, when competition is a physical possibility it should be taken advantage of and introduced at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

Competition means playing by the same rules. The govt makes the rules, and then exempts themselves from them.
 
Thrilla said:
here's some reading material while you ponder your mailing preferences.
https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-service-and-postal-monopoly-history.pdf

obviously you have a hard time with the fact when i bring them to you, so let's try the USPS bringing them to you and see where that gets.
Click to expand...

So when you receive a box from Amazon via UPS, how do you reconcile that in your mind with your belief that the USPS is a monopoly? Do you think, "Oh wow, somebody stuck a UPS sticker on the box...again!"

I'm not reading your data dump.
 
jonny5 said:
google translate for the above post yields "i have nothing add to this topic"
Click to expand...

jonny5 said:
The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.
Click to expand...

Explain what this means, if it does not carry the logical conclusion that private ISPs currently operate "fairly"
 
Cardinal said:
So when you receive a box from Amazon via UPS, how do you reconcile that in your mind with your belief that the USPS is a monopoly? Do you think, "Oh wow, somebody stuck a UPS sticker on the box...again!"

I'm not reading your data dump.
Click to expand...

the "data dump" as you call it... it a brief history of the monopoly... it's brought to you by the USPS.... it's a short 20 pages.

...consider it ..free education.


as for your preceding point...I reconcile things in my mind based on facts.... facts such as "parcels are not mail" and " the USPS does NOT have a monopoly on parcel delivery"
 
jonny5 said:
Competition means playing by the same rules. The govt makes the rules, and then exempts themselves from them.
Click to expand...

well, oftentimes ,the government won't really exempt themselves from their own rules... they are simply exempted from the business considerations that private enterprise must consider.
 
Thrilla said:
the "data dump" as you call it... it a brief history of the monopoly... it's brought to you by the USPS.... it's a short 20 pages.

...consider it ..free education.


as for your preceding point...I reconcile things in my mind based on facts.... facts such as "parcels are not mail" and " the USPS does NOT have a monopoly on parcel delivery"
Click to expand...

Facts that you made up don't count.
 
Obamacare. That is all that really needs to be said.
 
Cardinal said:
Certain government services by their very nature allow for competition and allow the quality to improve via that competition. A very straightforward example of this is mail delivery, and broadband should that competition be introduced. Obviously certain services by their physical nature competition would be logistically...challenging. This would include the dmv, water, gas and power. Anyway, when competition is a physical possibility it should be taken advantage of and introduced at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

And the best economists would agree with you.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
because it translates to this ------ HOW?
Click to expand...

Cost overruns. Rollout disaster. Cooked numbers. A bill so big we are still trying to figure out what it all means. Millions losing coverage and then inflated numbers of those who have benefited.

The short story is that the federal government was given limited powers in the beginning for a reason. They need to stay out of it. ACA was promised as the solution to our health care problems, instead it has been a clusterfvck from the beginning and is still costing the industry millions (billions?) trying to comply and stay in business. It really is hard to believe that after everything that has happened in the past 6 years that anyone would still fall for "the federal government can do it better".
 
tech30528 said:
Cost overruns. Rollout disaster. Cooked numbers. A bill so big we are still trying to figure out what it all means. Millions losing coverage and then inflated numbers of those who have benefited.

The short story is that the federal government was given limited powers in the beginning for a reason. They need to stay out of it. ACA was promised as the solution to our health care problems, instead it has been a clusterfvck from the beginning and is still costing the industry millions (billions?) trying to comply and stay in business. It really is hard to believe that after everything that has happened in the past 6 years that anyone would still fall for "the federal government can do it better".
Click to expand...


OK, and .... WHAT in Obama's plan is for the federal government to implement on a "product" level with respect to the link in the OP?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
OK, and .... WHAT in Obama's plan is for the federal government to implement on a "product" level with respect to the link in the OP?
Click to expand...

Ok, if you can restate that in english that would be helpful. Next we need to look at the text of the proposal (bill) instead of just this article, and then perhaps we can discuss it. Although it will likely be tomorrow. I'm working, lunch is over, and I have dinner plans.
 
tech30528 said:
Ok, if you can restate that in english that would be helpful. Next we need to look at the text of the proposal (bill) instead of just this article, and then perhaps we can discuss it. Although it will likely be tomorrow. I'm working, lunch is over, and I have dinner plans.
Click to expand...

Internet providers successfully lobbied state governments in order to prevent local municipalities from building their own isps. That's what the proposal is about: restoring freedom to local governments to choose their own course and provide basic utilities to their citizens like they should have been able to from the very beginning. The communications corporations were able to bribe their way into preventing competition, and this bill opens competition back up again. Everyone wins. Well, everyone but Telecom that is, but **** them.
 
Carjosse said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. You are sadly misguided i you think that is the case.
 
jonny5 said:
Here is exactly what will happen.



Govt will either fail spectacularly, or they will become a monopoly charging high costs for low quality service.
Click to expand...


$5.35 a month + $30 dollar activation seems a good deal, "basic" here is way more then that. Also, looked it up, and you can still get Comcast or Centurylink in Provo from what I see. Thus the current ridiculous activation fee (which the google deal is supposed to fix). So....how is it an example of either?
 
Cardinal said:
Read the article.
Click to expand...

No, read history, economics, common sense. Or I could read a craptastic propaganda piece that convinces the gullible the government cares bout them. I'll stick with reality you can have the fantasy.
 
MrVicchio said:
No, read history, economics, common sense. Or I could read a craptastic propaganda piece that convinces the gullible the government cares bout them. I'll stick with reality you can have the fantasy.
Click to expand...

You could read the article instead. You know, in case you wanted to know what the thread is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom