• 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:
how ,exactly, does this add competition to the telecom industry?
Click to expand...

In my area, comcast (or one of its predecessors) had a monopoly on TV service. People who are hooked into fiber can now get the same Triply Play package deals from someone other than Comcast, or any combination thereof, so telephone, internet, and TV services now have another competitor. I do not see how you could think having fewer players is better.
 
Cardinal said:
If people like Comcast then they'll choose them over the government.
Click to expand...

No they wont, because govt is 'free'. Unless your middle class in which case youll pay for Comcast, your govt internet which you dont want, and two or three peoples govt internet who cant afford it.
 
Here is exactly what will happen.

Google Paying $1 For $39 Million Fiber Service In Utah

In Provo, a city of 115,000 about 45 miles south of Salt Lake City, Google is making its first plans to take over an existing fiber system and will start operating it long before it can build the service for Austin.

Even as Google takes ownership of the municipal network, Provo will have to pay off loans for its construction for another dozen years, according to agreements released Thursday by city officials.

For nearly as many years, households have been paying $5.35 a month on their utility bills for a system that provides Internet, television and phone service — whether they use it or not.

But Provo officials say Google's deal is a good one for the city and its residents because the system hasn't been able to support itself. Google Fiber will offer residents something in return for the utility fee — basic Internet service at no charge if they pay a $30 hookup fee.

That's far less than the current $700 activation fee.
Click to expand...

Govt will either fail spectacularly, or they will become a monopoly charging high costs for low quality service.
 
I suspect that fiberoptic is going to be necessary for smart metering to work properly once that system gets fully up and running. We already have the meters--they communicate usage via antennas mounted on water towers and such. I suspect to have them interact more fully with being able to idle appliances and such briefly to take peak loads off the grid will require something more complex that radio transmission.
 
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...

Google has no interest in delivering low quality internet. They have every interest in delivering top-notch internet.
 
Fiddytree said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that would seem to be the case.
When it comes to federal vs. states rights, I'm much more for the state's right.
When it comes to state vs. local community rights, well, then I'm not that certain anymore.

It is rather concerning, given all that snooping can be done given this technology and how cheap it is to do so, that government, any government, would be in control of a broadband network.

I think I'd like to see a lot more of these details worked out and documented in some sort of general principals of operation before I render a final opinion on this.
(Yeah, I know. Seems like a cop-out answer, but the best that I can do right now, given the scant amount of available information - isn't it just a single speech from Obama at this point?)
 
jonny5 said:
No they wont, because govt is 'free'. Unless your middle class in which case youll pay for Comcast, your govt internet which you dont want, and two or three peoples govt internet who cant afford it.
Click to expand...

Aside from assistance programs for the poor, when is government free? I can't think of a single government service I've used that I didn't have to pay for.

I really don't think you've done your homework.
 
jonny5 said:
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...

Six times, huh? Apparently UPS and Fedex didn't get that memo.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, yes, that would seem to be the case.
When it comes to federal vs. states rights, I'm much more for the state's right.
When it comes to state vs. local community rights, well, then I'm not that certain anymore.

It is rather concerning, given all that snooping can be done given this technology and how cheap it is to do so, that government, any government, would be in control of a broadband network.

I think I'd like to see a lot more of these details worked out and documented in some sort of general principals of operation before I render a final opinion on this.
(Yeah, I know. Seems like a cop-out answer, but the best that I can do right now, given the scant amount of available information - isn't it just a single speech from Obama at this point?)
Click to expand...

So it seems like you are at least sympathetic with the administration's plan with local public internet. However, when it comes to their proposed method, you either have not stated your opinion or you are truly caught in the middle.

I appreciate that level of nuance that you brought to the table.

Again, as far as monitoring is concerned, we have to put this into context. Under the current private-dominated internet, our government already is able to (and does) grab and store raw internet data. We are already being snooped on and our information is being stored in facilities for months on end. In the future, this could become an issue if we seriously start eroding the federal government's ability to grab and store such data. There is a serious issue of privacy and legal liability with public internet. By using public internet, does the user begin to forfeit ordinary expectations of privacy and distance from law enforcement?
 
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...

i agree.
 
Fiddytree said:
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.
Click to expand...

States that ban individual towns from allowing their own wi-fi/cable/fiber access are abusing their legislative authority. While not unconstitutional, it's only appropriate for a state to enact such a ban if there's a risk that the municipality's service could cause problems for other communities within the state.
 
Fiddytree said:
So it seems like you are at least sympathetic with the administration's plan with local public internet. However, when it comes to their proposed method, you either have not stated your opinion or you are truly caught in the middle.

I appreciate that level of nuance that you brought to the table.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks. Just trying to be reasonable and honest. Honest. :)

Fiddytree said:
Again, as far as monitoring is concerned, we have to put this into context. Under the current private-dominated internet, our government already is able to (and does) grab and store raw internet data. We are already being snooped on and our information is being stored in facilities for months on end.
In the future, this could become an issue if we seriously start eroding the federal government's ability to grab and store such data. There is a serious issue of privacy and legal liability with public internet. By using public internet, does the user begin to forfeit ordinary expectations of privacy and distance from law enforcement?
Click to expand...

Primary suspect is the huge NSA data farm in Nevada, right? Yeah, not at all thrilled about that, nor thrilled that what should be private communication is being intercepted without warrant or FISA over sight, but then again, on a party line architecture, which the Internet really is, it's kinda hard to maintain any sort of privacy.

"By using public internet, does the user begin to forfeit ordinary expectations of privacy and distance from law enforcement?"

Party line architecture vs. expectations of privacy. Would it suffice for LEO restrictions from promiscuous looking / snooping without a warrant? Regardless of what the technical architecture was?
 
Cardinal said:
Aside from assistance programs for the poor, when is government free? I can't think of a single government service I've used that I didn't have to pay for.

I really don't think you've done your homework.
Click to expand...

In the same way that community college is 'free'.
 
Deuce said:
Uhh yeah that regulation doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Am I just supposed to take your statement as fact, or were you planning to provide some facts, reasoning, logic, or hell, even make something up to support it?
 
joG said:
Ist broad band a public good?
Click to expand...

Considering the military requires servicemembers to have access to internet even while not on duty, I'd say it is becoming a public necessity.
 
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...

There are a few cities that are actually doing this, and at gigabit speeds as well. it is full fiber network.
although I think it is internet only and it is cheaper than the POS services offered by telecoms.

that is why people are screaming for google fiber. for 120 bucks a month you can get full HD a 1 gig line up/down. you get 1 terabyte of recording space, you get a free nexus 7 to use as the remote, and you can record up to 8 tv shows at once.

I am almost tempted to move to Austin just for google fiber.

I always encourage competition. my only thing if the city is going to do this then they have to make money at it. they can't operate at a loss.
 
jonny5 said:
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
Click to expand...

did you read something else other than your link and the onther info i read because its nothing like your fear, this is allowing municipalities to set up and improve thier OWN networks instead of being stuck with the utility companies doing it for them.

Is there something else you would like to share with us?
 
Thrilla said:
how ,exactly, does this add competition to the telecom industry?
Click to expand...

well in ONE way it allows a company to just hook to the local infrastructure instead of having to build it.

little guy might not have the money to make the while infrastructure but can do the rest so it allows the little guy to compete with the big guy
 
Thrilla said:
how ,exactly, does this add competition to the telecom industry?
Click to expand...

most cities only have 1 cable provider. it is contracted out by the city and awarded to 1 company.
for internet you only have a few choices.

if you are lucky then Uverse or fios might be in your area otherwise you are stuck with dsl or your cable company.
for TV unless uverse or fios is around you are stuck with either satellite or cable.

right now the price of speed vs what can be provided is way out of sync.
that is why google punched all the telecom companies in the face with an upper cut.

even right now they are attempting to stop google from expanding it's fiber network but it isn't working very well.
by trying to limit right of way access on poles.

why? they are charging a premium for slow speed bandwidth.
 
Thrilla said:
I'm not opposed to training and information.. govt's being informed and trained on how best to partner with private firms is in our best interests....

funding govt's to set up their own ISP's though?... nah, i'm not behind that at all.
Click to expand...

That is foolish, the incredibly positive economic impacts of improving infrastructure cannot be ignored. Just be government is doing something, doesn't mean you as a libertarian MUST hate it.
 
roguenuke said:
Considering the military requires servicemembers to have access to internet even while not on duty, I'd say it is becoming a public necessity.
Click to expand...

I would argue we crossed that line somewhere in the neighborhood of 2005. At least that's when I became completely, unambiguously aware that not having an internet connection completely crippled any ability to do business. That laws were actually passed to prevent municipalities from setting up broadband is now no less unconscionable than laws preventing them from providing electricity or telephone service. Unfortunately there's a holdover of thought that still looks at the internet as a luxury or even a toy rather than a vital utility.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom