FCC Moves Toward National Broadband Policy
It's about time and is one aspect of the Bush 43 Presidency I give a good, hard
FCC National Broadband Plan
- Thread starter John Picard
- Start date
FCC Moves Toward National Broadband Policy
It's about time and is one aspect of the Bush 43 Presidency I give a good, hard
G
Garrovick
Guest
It's definitely a viable goal. If it's limited to wireless or DSL service. But it's unreasonable to assume everyone would get 7 Mbps service from a company like Time Warner or Comcast using cable delivery.
Is there some kind of catch? Will the FCC have more leeway on censoring and regulating site content?
Are we going to end up adopting something like the Australians Great Barrier firewall?
CuttingEdge100
Are we going to end up adopting something like the Australians Great Barrier firewall?
CuttingEdge100
This is, of course, a lot of nonsense.
Most people use the Internet simply for shopping and entertainment.
---------------
Try visiting most sites with dial-up (yes, there is a great percentage of this country on dial-up) and then you'll understand.
The wireless broadband they want to build is akin to the "If you build it, they will come" philosophy.
Shopping, of course, being an essential economic activity to keep our capitalist system functioning.
I do understand. I'm using the Internet over broadband right now--for entertainment.
It's not a national crisis if everyone doesn't do that.
This initiative seems aimed mainly at low income families, who probably won't have much discretionary income to spend at Amazon.com.
---------------
Well, I can see the broadband providers not liking this one bit, so it will probably die.
I mean even if they can offer a 720k wireless internet service everywhere, people will still want to get at LEAST 2-3 mbps service. So a basic service would be nice, I used to travel a lot on business, luckily all the hotels I stayed in had free wifi and there were at least McDonalds and Starbucks around that I could snag some free wifi lovin from, but it would be nice to just sit in my car and do my call reports and check my e-mail without having to spend at least $50 on 1.5mbps wireless broadband.
But will it happen? Doubtful, not so long as the broadband providers continue to sell the service, I mean you could say the same about home phone service too. There really shouldn't be a big reason why every house shouldn't just have it like they have electricity, but its a luxury for some especially now with cheap cell phone service available.
I mean even if they can offer a 720k wireless internet service everywhere, people will still want to get at LEAST 2-3 mbps service. So a basic service would be nice, I used to travel a lot on business, luckily all the hotels I stayed in had free wifi and there were at least McDonalds and Starbucks around that I could snag some free wifi lovin from, but it would be nice to just sit in my car and do my call reports and check my e-mail without having to spend at least $50 on 1.5mbps wireless broadband.
But will it happen? Doubtful, not so long as the broadband providers continue to sell the service, I mean you could say the same about home phone service too. There really shouldn't be a big reason why every house shouldn't just have it like they have electricity, but its a luxury for some especially now with cheap cell phone service available.
I think all governments are coming around to the idea that everyone must have some sort of basic internet access - it's becoming near impossible to function without using it. The UK government is thinking of doing something similar by forcing BT and the BBC to team up to supply everyone in the UK with a basic 2Mbps service.
Er, so your argument is that because the internet can be used for entertainment, that's all it's good for?
So the government wants to give away broadband to every citizen? Exactly who's gonna pay for all this?
G
Garrovick
Guest
Me and you and the taxpayers. Unless, the TV networks use the digital bands they have and broadcast it like TV. Every ten minutes of internet time, there would be three to four minutes of commercials.
You don't understand, and I hate to tell you, but there are A LOT OF US who live outside of the conventional Broadband and DSL limits who have the discretionary income to want this type of access; however, satellite is far too costly and the service is plain unacceptable. Been there, done that.
What's your next excuse?
G
Garrovick
Guest
Wireless, like "iPhones" and "3G networks" or some some sort of technology like that. Some thing that's being worked on.
If people can get digital TV, they should have access to Digital Internet service.
My 3G wireless connection has been a blessing; however, there are limits. My monthly download allotment is something like 5Tb, and if I go over that it's prorated. I learned that the hard way when I watched an episode of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Damn near lost half of my monthly allotment.
So, perhaps I am using it for entertainment. So what? By having broadband using the soon-to-be freed up analog spectrum, I'd probably have faster and better options.
Does every last person need to be "maximized"? This isn't a every once counts space shuttle thing, it's a human being thing.
Of course, you can't "maximize" anything if you SHUT THE FUCKING INTERNET DOWN FOR NO REASON.
Of course, you can't "maximize" anything if you SHUT THE FUCKING INTERNET DOWN FOR NO REASON.
No, but I manage our web filter at work and I see how the Internet is used by several hundred people while at work! I'm sure it's more of the same from home, only worse.
Yes, I do understand. My brother lives about five miles from my house, and he can see one of AT&T's central offices from his driveway. AT&T won't provide DSL to his home, but they will to mine. He does have other alternatives, such as wireless and cable, just as you have the alternative of satellite access.
The government has no business making me pay for someone else's Internet access that'll mostly be used for entertainment and shopping. Am I going to have to provide them with a free computer too?
---------------
Which is still basically the same argument.
The fact that people use the internet primarily for entertainment purposes does not mean that the other purposes can be discounted. That'd be like dismissing textbooks as useful in public schools because people read for pleasure.
Speaking of books, don't public libraries usually have free Internet access available?
I don't think we need any more tax money spent so people can watch YouTube and download pornography.
---------------