• 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 said:
In the same way that community college is 'free'.
Click to expand...

Enough with the silly red herrings. Do you think that municipalities should be unable by law to set up their own isp's?
 
Cardinal said:
Enough with the silly red herrings. Do you think that municipalities should be unable by law to set up their own isp's?
Click to expand...

Of course. I am anti-socialism. But I also think the power to decide that is with individuals, not the federal govt.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

So then change your states mind. You should not be using the federal govt to force your opinion on someone elses state.
 
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...


Only in the mind of OP is the current standard one where "private business" (ISPs) compete fairly.
 
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...

Broad ban is the same as electrifying and phones back in the 1930's. Everyone needs it, and it helps all of USA.

Time to regulate the net, fiber optic to every home and allow ALL "content produces" equal access to the network for a small fee.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
I'm confused, Obama is a tyrant because the federal government is preventing state governments from preventing local governments from building broadband infrastructure at the behest of their local constituents?
Click to expand...


you see, you have to understand the mindest:

"He's both a secret Muslin turrist and a radical Black Liberation Theology Christian. He's also a fascist war-monger and a communist wealth re-distributor. He's a ***** who capitulates to foreign governments, and a wannabe Steven Seagal who brutally orders the execution of innocent people. He's a do-nothing empty suit who has single-handedly destroyed the country."
 
jonny5 said:
So then change your states mind. You should not be using the federal govt to force your opinion on someone elses state.
Click to expand...

As someone who stands for individual free choice I would think you'd support local governments setting up infrastructure if that's what their citizens want.
 
Would need to read more into it to really come down strong either way, but I'd say my initial reaction is tentatively open to this. If people in a local area would like their local government to set up their own broadband then I'm not sure I think the state nor the federal government should be denying them that choice. Much like I'm not exactly fond of someone from California telling me how things need to be to work best in my state of Virginia, I'm not sure I'd want someone up in Ashburn telling someone down in Roanoke how they should REALLY be doing things either. Different locations create a different set of issues and requirements that change the potential answers and pitfalls put before you.

Where I would likely have an issue is if the federal government was offering assistance to these local governments in the form of tax breaks, loans, etc that are not equally offered to private entities attempting to create or maintain broadband in the same locations. I'm fine with local residents urging and getting their local government to try and create broadband infastructure. I'm not fine with the federal government coercing local governments to get into that business by offering them financial boons that are inherently absent for their private sector competition.

Essentially, on first glimpse, I'd be okay with this if it's essentially prohibiting states from barring local governments from organically deciding to start their own local broadband services. I would have issues with it however if it is the federal government attempting to artificially, to any degree, spur the decision to take such action.

Admittedly, part of me is conflicted based on my earlier statements about the diversity of locations and what's best for them. While I'm generally not a fan of states telling the local governments they can't do this...I'm not sure quite how much different that is than the federal government telling the state governments that they can't do what they're seemingly proposing to do.

Definitely would need to read up a bit more on it.

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...

But Obama's framing it a certain way, and to some the notion that "reality has a liberal bias" is actual fact rather than a mindless idiom, and thus to frame it in any other way is worthy of condemnation. What Obama is doing isn't "framing", he's just stating reality. Its Fox and others doing the "framing" by portraying it in some way other than what President Obama declares it to be.
 
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...

To this point...

If the intention of the President is to truly spur competition, and is not simply an ideological move pushing for greater oppertunity for the Government entering into and offering/controlling traditionally private sector segments of the economy, then why the focus on something that will provide a very limited amount of competition in a very limited scope as opposed to something broader.

To my understanding, various laws and regulations have established near monopolistic ownership of varoius areas with regards to broadband services, specifically as it relates to cable providers. If competition is truly the utmost priority in this, then why not instead be pushing for changes that would allow local private entities...as well as the other major national entities...to actively and fairly compete in all markets?

There are other methods of actually interjecting "competition" back into the market place in a fashion that is likely to be FAR more wide spread than relying on local goverments to choose to do this, as well as being likely to offer MORE options for competition as opposed to simply adding one....if that's the primary purpose, why go this route?
 
Deuce said:
There is no law that says FedEx has to charge more than the USPS. They cost more because they aren't nearly as efficient.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

Even though it's a federal agency, the Postal Service has not received any taxpayer funding since the early 1980s, when it was phased into an independent, self-sufficient financial entity.
Click to expand...

U.S. Postal Service to close another 2,000 locations - Jan. 24, 2011

It sounds fair to me: the government sets up the infrastructure and then the people pay for it as they continue to use it.
 
Luftwaffe said:
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.
Click to expand...

we're not really talking infrastructure though...we aren't talking about the govt building the physical assets that allow for an enterprise to run.. we're talking about the govt building the physical assets, and then running the enterprise for a fee ( not necessarily a profit, though) and being a market "competitor".

ya see, I have zero problem with most govt infrastructure ( unlike the caricature of libertarians you have in your head)... for example, I don't mind the govt building roads.... there are lots of infrastructure projects i fully support the govt being involved in.


are we know shifting the conversation to simple infrastructure?.. .as in , the govt simply building the physical assets ( running fiber optics lines to households, businesses, etc) for enterprises to run on?... because so far, it's been about the govt being a direct "competitor " to telecom firms.
I don't have many problems with the govt providing the physical assets for enterprises to use and compete on, provided the govt doesn't enter the market as a competitor.

so yes, infrastructure has great benefits... true competition does as well...... forgoing one or the other is foolish, to me... so why must we choose between the two?... why not formulate policy that takes advantage of both?
 
When the umpire starts playing the game, who then is the umpire?
 
Thrilla said:
we're not really talking infrastructure though...we aren't talking about the govt building the physical assets that allow for an enterprise to run.. we're talking about the govt building the physical assets, and then running the enterprise for a fee ( not necessarily a profit, though) and being a market "competitor".

ya see, I have zero problem with most govt infrastructure ( unlike the caricature of libertarians you have in your head)... for example, I don't mind the govt building roads.... there are lots of infrastructure projects i fully support the govt being involved in.


are we know shifting the conversation to simple infrastructure?.. .as in , the govt simply building the physical assets ( running fiber optics lines to households, businesses, etc) for enterprises to run on?... because so far, it's been about the govt being a direct "competitor " to telecom firms.
I don't have many problems with the govt providing the physical assets for enterprises to use and compete on, provided the govt doesn't enter the market as a competitor.

so yes, infrastructure has great benefits... true competition does as well...... forgoing one or the other is foolish, to me... so why must we choose between the two?... why not formulate policy that takes advantage of both?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
When the umpire starts playing the game, who then is the umpire?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the states? Because those are the entities that banned local municipalities from setting up their own isps. What would motivate them to do that in the first place, do you suppose?
 
Cardinal said:
U.S. Postal Service to close another 2,000 locations - Jan. 24, 2011

It sounds fair to me: the government sets up the infrastructure and then the people pay for it as they continue to use it.
Click to expand...

the USPS is not "infrastructure"... it's a for-pay service provider....with a monopoly

and it's true that they are "independent"... unfortunately, the basic rules of business do not apply to the USPS.
if the USPS was a "real" business, it would have gone out of business long ago.....they would have been forced to file bankruptcy, the corporate officers would be fired or in jail, and all of the assets would have been sold off....hell, the govt , would have killed it simply for having a monopoly.

being a govt. service provider has it's benefits...there's nothing to answer to but political will.
right this 2nd, congress can say " the USPS will no longer be independent and we will fund the operations out of general funds"... or they can say "the USPS no longer exists, it's done".
both of these statements are well withing the powers of congress to do...it's simply a matter of politics... business considerations don't exist for them.

is it the same for municipalities?.. not really... they actually have to pay attention to financials... unless and until the federal govt decides to subsidize them.
 
Thrilla said:
the USPS is not "infrastructure"... it's a for-pay service provider....with a monopoly

and it's true that they are "independent"... unfortunately, the basic rules of business do not apply to the USPS.
if the USPS was a "real" business, it would have gone out of business long ago.....they would have been forced to file bankruptcy, the corporate officers would be fired or in jail, and all of the assets would have been sold off....hell, the govt , would have killed it simply for having a monopoly.

being a govt. service provider has it's benefits...there's nothing to answer to but political will.
right this 2nd, congress can say " the USPS will no longer be independent and we will fund the operations out of general funds"... or they can say "the USPS no longer exists, it's done".
both of these statements are well withing the powers of congress to do...it's simply a matter of politics... business considerations don't exist for them.

is it the same for municipalities?.. not really... they actually have to pay attention to financials... unless and until the federal govt decides to subsidize them.
Click to expand...

Your post is based on nonsensical premises. Mail delivery is infrastructure, and the USPS is not a monopoly. Start over.
 
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...

your straight forward example is false.
mail delivery is not competitive.. it's a govt monopoly, by law.


do UPS and fedex ever deliver the mail?.... yes, they do... the USPS contracts with them to deliver mail in some locations.... the USPS makes use of the benefits of private sector competition( brought about by competition in parcel delivery) in order to provide their noncompetitive service.

the parcel delivery service is competitive...it's highly competitive among private firms.
 
Cardinal said:
Your post is based on nonsensical premises. Mail delivery is infrastructure, and the USPS is not a monopoly. Start over.
Click to expand...

:lol: up is down, down is up,... gotcha.

mail delivery is a service.... the USPS holds a monopoly for mail delivery.
these are facts, not opinions.
 
Thrilla said:
:lol: up is down, down is up,... gotcha.

mail delivery is a service.... the USPS holds a monopoly for mail delivery.
these are facts, not opinions.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll remember that it's a monopoly next time I mail something by UPS or Fedex.
 
Cardinal said:
As someone who stands for individual free choice I would think you'd support local governments setting up infrastructure if that's what their citizens want.
Click to expand...

Thats between me and MY state. The topic however is about federal abuse of power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom