Obama pushes broadband plan

iguanaman · Jan 17, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
I wasn't asking a loaded question Nimby, I was just wanting clarification. Second, my experiences are the same as yours I would assume. And third, the Transportation Trust fun is underfunded right now by TRILLIONS of dollars. That's what is estimated to fully repair our infrastructure. The reason this occurred was the same reason why there are so many unfunded liabilities throughout the government, and that is we keep trying to take from one sector of the government to pay for another. Look at lottery dollars that were earmaked for education as another example.

I'll be honest, I don't know anything about Transportation Bill, so I'm not going to comment on it. All I will say is that anything that was proposed last year was doomed to failure as it was an election year. There's probably more to it that you are leaving out, but as I said, I don't pay that close attention to Congress to care. I do know that the answer isn't simply to throw more money at the problem, as that has been tried and failed.

You sound just like those House members who couldn't get a single bill into law for 2 years and think they are doing a good job. Are you worried our infrastructure might not be a good investment? Maybe we should go back to building bridges in Iraq instead.?

iguanaman · Jan 17, 2015

AmericanSpartan said:
You think criminals obey the law, you have less then no room to pull rank on anyone.

Please stop proving my point...is English a 2nd language with you?

Hamster Buddha · Jan 17, 2015

iguanaman said:
You sound just like those House members who couldn't get a single bill into law for 2 years and think they are doing a good job. Are you worried our infrastructure might not be a good investment? Maybe we should go back to building bridges in Iraq instead.?

I'm worried that any money spent on said infrastructure will end up costing us far more than the mere 2 trillion dollars, and even then it won't get fixed. Like I said, if the government could maintain infrastructure, then the fund would be so underfunded now would it?

AmericanSpartan · Jan 17, 2015

iguanaman said:
Please stop proving my point...is English a 2nd language with you?

How can you make a point when you do not have one to be begin with?

AmericanSpartan · Jan 17, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
I'm worried that any money spent on said infrastructure will end up costing us far more than the mere 2 trillion dollars, and even then it won't get fixed. Like I said, if the government could maintain infrastructure, then the fund would be so underfunded now would it?

When has government ever not wasted funds, abused power, or ever produced something better then private sector?

Hamster Buddha · Jan 17, 2015

AmericanSpartan said:
When has government ever not wasted funds, abused power, or ever produced something better then private sector?

I'm pretty sure that's my point... then again, that isn't to say the government CANT do something. After all, throw enough **** at the wall and something will stick right?

AmericanSpartan · Jan 17, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
I'm pretty sure that's my point... then again, that isn't to say the government CANT do something. After all, throw enough **** at the wall and something will stick right?

Stick? No, Stain and ruin? With out question, and that is all the due.

Hamster Buddha · Jan 17, 2015

AmericanSpartan said:
Stick? No, Stain and ruin? With out question, and that is all the due.

Government did put a man on the moon, did it not?

AmericanSpartan · Jan 17, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
Government did put a man on the moon, did it not?

Who made build the Rocket Engines?

Who made build the space suits?

Who made the computers?

Who wrote the programming?

Who made the camera that use to broadcast the event?

The Private Sector did that, not the Government, they just paid for it, and honored contracts, nothing more.

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
Explain what this means, if it does not carry the logical conclusion that private ISPs currently operate "fairly"

Private ISPs follow the law, thats what fair means. To the extent that they dont, there should be punishment, not banishment.

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

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?

We have yet to see the details, however there is already tax money going to specific products, namely broadband internet. According to the article, this is his chosen winner:

Obama wants to expand access to broadband communications services, siding with local communities that want either to expand competition or provide municipal services themselves. 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.

At the very least, the product is financing, consultation, and technical assistance, which the private ISPs currently pay for themselves (and also get some subsidies from the govt, which is also wrong).

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

coyotedelmar said:
$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?

Because it failed. They couldnt operate it at that cost. Which is why they gave it away. Would the citizens have supported it at the real costs of $50 a month, or $100?

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
this post brought to you via TCP/IP which the government gave away to telcoms for free.

Not free, the people paid taxes which funded DARPA, who then worked XEROX a private company. and then BBN and a couple universities (this info brought to you by wikipedia, which private citizens gave away for free). DARPA may have been the first ones to connect two computers together over long distance, but they by no means are responsible for the internet we have today. That has been almost 100% privately built.

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

SlevinKelevra said:
...but... but.... OP told us the only unfair competition would be IF government got involved in the industry.

how can this be?

Isnt that exactly what happened?

have been successful in getting laws passed against it. = govt getting involved

You should get that stammer looked at.

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

beefheart said:
Because his ODS has eclipsed his ability to reason.

Hey guys Im right here, and the topic is over there. Stick to it or get out. Ad homimens are against forum rules.

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

Declan said:
I think part of the dispute is what assumptions people are making. I think if people assume the municipal broadbands will be like municipal water and you are forced to have it with no competition at whatever price they set, then you would see it as the government taking over the market. Like I have indicated, this is something my city is doing and it is the exact opposite. The city is creating the network, but anybody can access the fiber network to deliver their services, and in that sense, it is doing the exact opposite of what the former people seem to believe. We are not a huge market and I suspect that until the city finishes all the fiber we will not see a lot of competition off it, but eventually any company in the world could compete with any other company in the world to provide telephone, TV, internet over it up to the gig per second or whatever it is data capabilities.

And my city did they opposite. They created the fiber network (profiting the mayor who was a consultant for the company who did the work), and then made a deal with Comcast that no one could use it. Thats goverNET for you.

jonny5 · Jan 17, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
Government did put a man on the moon, did it not?

To what purpose? Thats government for you, waste hundreds of billions on something that doesnt matter, then abandon it.

Hamster Buddha · Jan 17, 2015

jonny5 said:
To what purpose? Thats government for you, waste hundreds of billions on something that doesnt matter, then abandon it.

There is a lot of benefit in space travel, otherwise the private sector wouldn't be investing in it today.

Renae · Jan 17, 2015

Mr. Obama, in a speech this week in Iowa, called on local governments to get into the Internet business, even though the law in some states prohibits risky and expensive government-owned broadband networks. The president pledged billions of dollars to encourage cities to build broadband infrastructure.

The prospects are not encouraging. Municipal broadband networks in Florida, Virginia, Louisiana, Vermont, North Carolina, Utah and Tennessee have cost millions and failed to make good on promises of quality service at low cost to subscribers. Under the president’s plan, time and money, and lots of it, would be spent to provide broadband service in places already well-served by private Internet providers. The president’s scheme won’t do much to help deserving and underserved rural areas get better service.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-neurtality-would-destroy-the-/#ixzz3P5aY5hoW
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Read it people, this is the reality of the "Obama proposal"

Declan · Jan 17, 2015

jonny5 said:
And my city did they opposite. They created the fiber network (profiting the mayor who was a consultant for the company who did the work), and then made a deal with Comcast that no one could use it. Thats goverNET for you.

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.

Declan · Jan 17, 2015

MrVicchio said:
Read it people, this is the reality of the "Obama proposal"

The reality if the proposal is to give localities a choice of whether or not to do this, not a mandate to do it. Once again, the statist conservatives want to deny people choices in favor of existing corporate monopolies.

My city is deploying it based on the market need for it. They are not randomly trying to hook up everybody at once. We were never promised cheaper internet as part of the plan. It is primarily about attracting new businesses and jobs, and that is part of the equation and that has been happening in my area as we are seeing high-tech jobs trickling into a redneck town. In addition, the next part of the development plan to to create a supercomputing cyber park. Even beyond new bisness, I know someone whose company just switched over to fiber. They had no choice not to really. Their servers back up continuously to the cloud and that was sucking up their bandwidth and causing them connectivity issues.

I realize that cheapskates do not want to spend a nickle if they do not personally see a quarter's worth of direct benefit, but this infrastructure is necessary for the future. The hoover dam was a complete financial fiasco, and then came WWII and without it there, we would have been up the creek had the extra generating capacity not already been created in the form of the previously useless dam. That is how these things work. It is very expensive. Ours is deployed underground to protect the lines. That takes a buttload of time, energy and cost as they have to trench and often hand-dig around existing infrastructure in the ground like water, gas, sewer and buried cables. All Obama is doing is trying to give these cities the option of doing it.

iguanaman · Jan 17, 2015

jonny5 said:
And my city did they opposite. They created the fiber network (profiting the mayor who was a consultant for the company who did the work), and then made a deal with Comcast that no one could use it. Thats goverNET for you.

That's because you live in Florida the graft capital of the world. It's run by Republicans. What else would you expect from a State that elected the man who paid the biggest fine in history for Medicare fraud, TWICE. In Florida, bilking the Government means he is "smart".

Renae · Jan 17, 2015

Declan said:
The reality if the proposal is to give localities a choice of whether or not to do this, not a mandate to do it. Once again, the statist conservatives want to deny people choices in favor of existing corporate monopolies.

My city is deploying it based on the market need for it. They are not randomly trying to hook up everybody at once. We were never promised cheaper internet as part of the plan. It is primarily about attracting new businesses and jobs, and that is part of the equation and that has been happening in my area as we are seeing high-tech jobs trickling into a redneck town. In addition, the next part of the development plan to to create a supercomputing cyber park. Even beyond new bisness, I know someone whose company just switched over to fiber. They had no choice not to really. Their servers back up continuously to the cloud and that was sucking up their bandwidth and causing them connectivity issues.

I realize that cheapskates do not want to spend a nickle if they do not personally see a quarter's worth of direct benefit, but this infrastructure is necessary for the future. The hoover dam was a complete financial fiasco, and then came WWII and without it there, we would have been up the creek had the extra generating capacity not already been created in the form of the previously useless dam. That is how these things work. It is very expensive. Ours is deployed underground to protect the lines. That takes a buttload of time, energy and cost as they have to trench and often hand-dig around existing infrastructure in the ground like water, gas, sewer and buried cables. All Obama is doing is trying to give these cities the option of doing it.

Yawn yawn yeah yeah, only Government can do it right, we have to invest blah blah blah kensyian bull**** and all that.

Reality shows you're wrong. Obama touted the Tenn. Government ISP as an example of what he wants to see nationwide. Guess what? IT FAILED.

Cardinal · Jan 17, 2015

MrVicchio said:
Yawn yawn yeah yeah, only Government can do it right, we have to invest blah blah blah kensyian bull**** and all that.

Reality shows you're wrong. Obama touted the Tenn. Government ISP as an example of what he wants to see nationwide. Guess what? IT FAILED.

Ugh, that crap, hyperbole-filled article should have had "this message brought to you by Comcast" at the end. Essentially your argument creates the conclusion that a)municipalities shouldn't have electricity, phone or gas service because the government might screw it up (not that I take your paid-for hit piece at face value for an instant), and b)that it's perfectly fine for corporations to lobby government to ban competition and remove the rights of citizens to determine their own course. For all that conservatives and libertarians make noise about personal freedom and government tyranny, the truth is they go into full salad-tossing mode when they learn the source of that tyranny is corporate.

Declan · Jan 17, 2015

MrVicchio said:
Yawn yawn yeah yeah, only Government can do it right, we have to invest blah blah blah kensyian bull**** and all that.

Reality shows you're wrong. Obama touted the Tenn. Government ISP as an example of what he wants to see nationwide. Guess what? IT FAILED.

Yada Yada Yada impatient people feed hater hate.

Obama pushes broadband plan

Respected On All Sides