• 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

Hamster Buddha said:
There is a lot of benefit in space travel, otherwise the private sector wouldn't be investing in it today.
Click to expand...

How much of that is to service govt contracts? Its same as saying Boeing is investing in aeronautics when they build fighter jets.
 
Last edited:
Declan said:
1) sounds like you guys need to elect better a District Attorney

2) that is a local issue, not related to whether or not every city should or should not build the network. Those are local policy issues.

3) Comcast really doesn't need fiber because they are starting to deploy gigasphere technology that allows them to get to gb/s speeds over the existing coax lines

4) My guess is that your city allowed this because it is the fiber-coax hybrid system and Comcast already had the contract on the coax line.
Click to expand...

Its an example of why govt should stay out of it altogether.
 
jonny5 said:
Its an example of why govt should stay out of it altogether.
Click to expand...

Ah Yes, the mantra of Floridians right up until the point a hurricane knocks their electric/telephone/cable poles down.
 
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...

Is that what this does? I have my doubts. I do think we should make a for real high-speed internet infrastructure, but I imagine it will all be captured by corporate interests and that it will end no different than it is today.
 
If a state or local government wants to supply broadband to it's citizens, the decision is being made at the level where it should be made, by the people on a state and local level. At this point, I don't see an issue and there's nothing wrong with Obama "looking into it". Now if he proposes something that actually does trample the rights of people or is an overstep of federal authority, we can just wait until there's something beyond speculation to flog mercilessly. :)
 
Carjosse said:
Why should a city not be able to setup it's own broadband?. . . . .
Click to expand...

That's not governments' business!! Good grief, liberals want an all encompassing government that does everything from wipe their butts to tell them how big their sodas can be. What is wrong with you people.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
That's not governments' business!! Good grief, liberals want an all encompassing government that does everything from wipe their butts to tell them how big their sodas can be. What is wrong with you people.
Click to expand...

So instead we should have an all-encompassing corporate monopoly that's so good at providing a superior service, it has to lobby the state legislature to prevent local governments from setting up their own isps. Either you think this, or you didn't bother to read the article.
 
iguanaman said:
Since broad band is a monopoly in most markets what you are really saying is that Govt. should not prevent or stop monopolies. Again that is a primary job of Govt. No wonder you hate the Govt. you have no idea what its jobs are, and highways are certainly one of them superhighways included.
Click to expand...

None of which has anything to with what I said. Maybe you thought you were replying to someone else....
 
Papa bull said:
If a state or local government wants to supply broadband to it's citizens, the decision is being made at the level where it should be made, by the people on a state and local level. At this point, I don't see an issue and there's nothing wrong with Obama "looking into it". Now if he proposes something that actually does trample the rights of people or is an overstep of federal authority, we can just wait until there's something beyond speculation to flog mercilessly. :)
Click to expand...

That is what he is proposing. A rule by the FCC that forbids states from making laws.

President Obama gave the FCC his blessing this week to use its regulatory authority to pre-empt state laws prohibiting cities and towns from building broadband networks
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
That is what he is proposing. A rule by the FCC that forbids states from making laws.
Click to expand...

Well, that might be a problem, then. It depends on what the rules are. But if Obama proposes more rules that would further erode state's rights, he needs a good swift kick in the ass.
 
Cardinal said:
So instead we should have an all-encompassing corporate monopoly that's so good at providing a superior service, it has to lobby the state legislature to prevent local governments from setting up their own isps. Either you think this, or you didn't bother to read the article.
Click to expand...

Why is it one or the other? Govt should neither be promoting or prohibiting citizens from pursuing whatever business venture they want. It is wrong for govt to compete with citizens in the market, and it is wrong for govt to block competition. Citizens making rules which prohibit govt from doing such things is natural and common.
 
Papa bull said:
Well, that might be a problem, then. It depends on what the rules are. But if Obama proposes more rules that would further erode state's rights, he needs a good swift kick in the ass.
Click to expand...

The way it sounds, some cities petitioned the FCC to allow them to violate state law, which is rediculous. This belongs in a court, not an agency committee.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote in February to decide whether municipalities can bypass state laws to provide their own internet service – a policy that President Barack Obama threw his weight behind earlier this week.
Click to expand...

FCC to vote on Obama?s call for government-run internet next month ? RT USA
 
jonny5 said:
Why is it one or the other? Govt should neither be promoting or prohibiting citizens from pursuing whatever business venture they want. It is wrong for govt to compete with citizens in the market, and it is wrong for govt to block competition. Citizens making rules which prohibit govt from doing such things is natural and common.
Click to expand...
That's what state government did: it blocked competition when internet providers lobbied state congress to prevent citizens from determining their own course so the isps could maintain a monopoly.

You still don't know what your own thread is about, do you?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
That's what state government did: it blocked competition when internet providers lobbied state congress to prevent citizens from determining their own course so the isps could maintain a monopoly.

You still don't know what your own thread is about, do you?
Click to expand...

You still cant read can you.

It is wrong for govt to compete with citizens in the market, and it is wrong for govt to block competition.
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
You still cant read can you.
Click to expand...

It is wrong for govt to compete with citizens in the market, and it is wrong for govt to block competition.
Click to expand...

So you agree with Obama's proposal then. Glad to hear it.
 
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

So are you going on record to say you hate the post office?
 
Simple fix... Citing anti-trust violations, have the FCC institute a regulation that Carries cannot be an ISP.

Problem solved.
 
poweRob said:
So are you going on record to say you hate the post office?
Click to expand...

Nope. The USPS was in existence long before any private businesses were in place. They CHOSE to put themselves into the position of "competing with the referees", it wasn't forced on them.
 
Except the USPS isn't funded by the US Government.

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters.[5] Since the 2006 all-time peak mail volume,[6] after which Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act,[7] (which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to fully prefund both employee retirement health and pension benefits, a requirement exceeding that of other government and private organizations [8]), revenue dropped sharply due to recession-influenced[9] declining mail volume,[10] prompting the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit
Click to expand...
 
I was a human pinata months ago here on DP for liking free internet service, people accused me of being entitled to something, and not wanting to pay for anything.

I wonder if those critical of me go for those BOGO deals? Or, if they just buy one, take one, and they leave the freebie?
 
AJiveMan said:
I was a human pinata months ago here on DP for liking free internet service, people accused me of being entitled to something, and not wanting to pay for anything.

I wonder if those critical of me go for those BOGO deals? Or, if they just buy one, take one, and they leave the freebie?
Click to expand...

Everyone likes freestuff. The people thumping you just knew that government handouts might be free to you but they're paid for by OTHER people. There is nothing the government can give to you that it doesn't first take from someone else. That's probably why you got the business. You basically were applauding the government taking from others and giving to you in their eyes and their perspective wasn't wrong.
 
poweRob said:
Simple fix... Citing anti-trust violations, have the FCC institute a regulation that Carries cannot be an ISP.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Carries? Carriers? FCC doesnt have that power. That would have to go to the FTC, and it seems unlikely they could prove it given the number of ISPs in the country. I have 4 options alone in my small city.

http://webpagefxblog.webpagefx1.net...-Service-Provider-State-by-State-1024x731.png

Thats just the top ISP per state. Each state has several competitors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom