• 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

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.

President Obama is diving deeper into the debate over Internet control, urging the Federal Communications Commission to pre-empt state laws that restrict local governments from building broadband services.

To promote it, he announced that his administration will provide technical and financial assistance to towns and cities that want to improve Internet service for their residents.

The White House also announced that the Commerce Department would promote greater broadband access by hosting regional workshops and offering technical assistance to communities. The Department of Agriculture also will provide grants and loans of $40 million to $50 million to assist rural areas.

Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see
 
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.
 
I actually like this idea. It is allowing local communities to get the information and training they need to implement internet service if they so choose.

The administration is smart to frame this as a function of local versus state politics, as opposed to national politics versus state politics.
 
My city is doing it. I think they are currently leasing out the lines to a private local ISP though. I was pretty excited when I saw the posts marked "Underground fiberoptic Cable" appear in my neighborhood after they spent a couple days trenching and then repairing the main road in and out of the subdivision. They ran it to a big church so it is just a matter of time before they start connecting up houses in my hood like they have done in some other neighborhoods & business districts already.
 
This looks like a nation-wide infrastructural improvement. I'm not seeing the problem here.
 
I actually like this idea. It is allowing local communities to get the information and training they need to implement internet service if they so choose.

The administration is smart to frame this as a function of local versus state politics, as opposed to national politics versus state politics.

Which hasn't stopped Fox from framing it as a Federal-vs-State issue anyway.
 
This looks like a nation-wide infrastructural improvement. I'm not seeing the problem here.

How could you be so blind?? It's Obama's idea, that is the problem. ;)
 
Which hasn't stopped Fox from framing it as a Federal-vs-State issue anyway.

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.
 
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.

how ,exactly, does this add competition to the telecom industry?
 
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.

It's ridiculous he even needs to frame the discussion in such ways just to improve the nation's infrastructure. But when simply adding the word "Obamacare" to the discussion turns Net Neutrality into a left-vs-right issue, you do what you gotta do, I guess.
 
how ,exactly, does this add competition to the telecom industry?

In many markets, particularly small towns, there is only one broadband provider. A second provider, even if its a publicly owned one, is competition.
 
It's ridiculous he even needs to frame the discussion in such ways just to improve the nation's infrastructure.

In politics you frame the issue in a manner consistent with the ethos of your society. You can try to shift the emphasis in another direction so that it may eventually stick, but you can't not tailor your message to the standard thought processes.
 
In politics you frame the issue in a manner consistent with the ethos of your society. You can try to shift the emphasis in another direction, but you can't not tailor your message to the standard thought processes.

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.
 
I know. In my adorably naive way, though, infrastructure isn't left-vs-right, freedom-vs-tyranny, Federal-vs-state, it's just...infrastructure.

Nothing is just anything.
 
This looks like a nation-wide infrastructural improvement. I'm not seeing the problem here.

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.
 
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.

Why?

........
 
Why not let President Obama explain it to you?

 
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

Ist broad band a public good?
 
In many markets, particularly small towns, there is only one broadband provider. A second provider, even if its a publicly owned one, is competition.

on face value, it might seem you are correct.... unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way... you end up with with a cluster****.
the private firm, in this scenario, turns into a subsidy queen... as it can now rely on government to do the actual infrastructure improvement and then capitalize off of them, provided the govt allows them to be competitive ( yes.. allows)
ya see, there are no regulations or market forces that dictate pricing on the govt's part.... they can offer free broadband access if they so choose (which they will likely do for low income folks).. the government has no fiduciary duty to it's investors.. it is it's own investor.
the only thing stopping the government from becoming that local monopoly is .. politics.
oddly enough, of course, is the fact that if the government runs the ISP, it also can write it's own regulations pertaining to that ISP... it is under no duty or obligation to operate under the same regulatory scheme as the private ISP

some of this may come to pass.. .some it if may not..... whether they do or not is completely up to politicians..not market forces, not economic health of the decisions, not being able to recoup investment, not having fiduciary duty.... simple political whim is all it requires.

so no, it's not competition...it's the illusion of competition.
competition is tough among private forms.. and it usually comes down to a matter of capital... the bigger fish can out-compete the litter fish.
on all other basis, the firms are on equal footing... .they have the same obligations and duties and are held to the same regulatory scheme and subject to the same economic forces.
none of this is true when it comes to govt vs private firms
 
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.

Because the gov't should only be a referee in the market, not a player. Giving the gov't a business means giving it the ability to pass laws/regulations that give it an unfair advantage.
 
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


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.
 
Back
Top Bottom