FCC National Broadband Plan

[Arrqh]

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?

They've got electricity and running water at public libraries too; I guess there's no reason to make sure people can get those at home either.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Of course, you can't "maximize" anything if you SHUT THE FUCKING INTERNET DOWN FOR NO REASON.

Whatever that is, I'm not allowed to access. Can you give a summary?

 

[scotthm]

They've got electricity and running water at public libraries too; I guess there's no reason to make sure people can get those at home either.

The federal government doesn't supply homes with water or electricity, nor should they supply them with high bandwidth Internet connections. There are enough zombie computers out there already.

---------------

 

[msbae]

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

My first thoughts exactly...

So the government wants to give away broadband to every citizen? Exactly who's gonna pay for all this?

My second thoughts exactly...

So the government wants to give away broadband to every citizen? Exactly who's gonna pay for all this?

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.

...and my third thoughts: 'Oh God, no! Make it stop!'

Aren't all the ads we have on the net annoying enough. Hell, I have having to watch a 30-sec commercial every few minutes on Hulu. Watching 3-4 minutes every 10 is not going to work for advertisers. I'll just do what I do with TV, change the channel or use it as a good excuse to hit the head.

 

[Arrqh]

They've got electricity and running water at public libraries too; I guess there's no reason to make sure people can get those at home either.

The federal government doesn't supply homes with water or electricity, nor should they supply them with high bandwidth Internet connections. There are enough zombie computers out there already.

You're not familiar with the Department of Energy then, huh?

I find it interesting that the naysayers here appear to be of the opinion that the FCC's move represents them wanting to actually lay government owned cables and service to houses. In fact, they are suggesting something else entirely.... offering incentives to private companies because the private sector has shown that they are either incapable or unwilling to do it themselves and it is beginning to hurt the country as a whole on the global scale (because the FCC is able to recognize the fact that the internet is used for a lot more then just people looking at YouTube). Which is why the DOE is a very apt comparison; they do pretty much the same thing with the private energy companies in the US. Which is to say, offering incentives to private companies to get them to do things that are in the country's best interest.

As shocking as it is to see people claim that the internet has nothing to offer people except entertainment, I have to say it's even more shocking to see people make a leap from "regulation to promote growth" to "the government is going to forcefully insert ads into webpages." I mean... seriously? There is no logical connection between those two ideas at all. Same goes for fears of censoring and regulating content because the government will not be owning or running any services.

 

[John Picard]

As shocking as it is to see people claim that the internet has nothing to offer people except entertainment, I have to say it's even more shocking to see people make a leap from "regulation to promote growth" to "the government is going to forcefully insert ads into webpages." I mean... seriously? There is no logical connection between those two ideas at all. Same goes for fears of censoring and regulating content because the government will not be owning or running any services.

Exactly. It's like the early days, when there weren't any roads developed (hell it happens to this day). No roads means no travel, which means businesses/people cannot locate to different areas. The government invests in infrastructure, building roads, and next thing you know people migrate to these now open places.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand. What part of "satellite service is costly and unreliable" do you refuse to comprehend? Do some searching and you'll find that it's the absolute worst when it comes to customer service.

What's your next excuse?

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?

---------------

At what point was it stated that the government is going to make you pay for someone else's service and why do you have this hard-on that the only aspect people will derive from it is entertainment and shopping? It's interesting how you jump to conclusions without even delving deeper into the plan.

Again, it's the Catch-22 of Government investment in infrastructure. Did you know that cities/towns own the Water Department and Sewage Treatment Plant. If you're so adamant that Government shouldn't be involved in infrastructure building, then shouldn't everyone have his own well and septic?

The FCC plan is to build the infrastructure and then SELL the service. Quite a concept, isn't it? But you'd rather the US, as a whole, lag behind the rest of the world in access to technology

 

[scotthm]

You're not familiar with the Department of Energy then, huh?

Yes, and they have no power lines running to my home.

I find it interesting that the naysayers here appear to be of the opinion that the FCC's move represents them wanting to actually lay government owned cables and service to houses. In fact, they are suggesting something else entirely.... offering incentives to private companies because the private sector has shown that they are either incapable or unwilling to do it themselves

They're suggesting that they take more money from over taxed citizens to prop up another unprofitable (and unnecessary) enterprise.

and it is beginning to hurt the country as a whole on the global scale (because the FCC is able to recognize the fact that the internet is used for a lot more then just people looking at YouTube).

Yes, it's used for watching MySpace, Facebook, Hulu, message boards, downloading porn, eBay, Amazon.com, extortion, phishing, etc. Oh yes, and emailing grandbaby pictures to each other. Things that don't warrent robbing my pockets.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand. What part of "satellite service is costly and unreliable" do you refuse to comprehend? Do some searching and you'll find that it's the absolute worst when it comes to customer service.

Someone has to be. The point is people do not need high speed Internet. I know a lot of people using dial-up and they're living fulfilled lives by not sitting in front of a computer monitor all the time like too many of the people here.

---------------

 

[msbae]

and it is beginning to hurt the country as a whole on the global scale (because the FCC is able to recognize the fact that the internet is used for a lot more then just people looking at YouTube).

Yes, it's used for watching MySpace, Facebook, Hulu, message boards, downloading porn, eBay, Amazon.com, extortion, phishing, etc. Oh yes, and emailing grandbaby pictures to each other. Things that don't warrent robbing my pockets.

FWIW, I use the internet to make money with the video game blog that I write. The link is in my Sig.

Also, MySpace and Facebook have been invaluable to me as a communications tool. They both helped me to re-establish contact with a old friends I haven't heard from in years.

 

[John Picard]

You're not familiar with the Department of Energy then, huh?

Yes, and they have no power lines running to my home.

I find it interesting that the naysayers here appear to be of the opinion that the FCC's move represents them wanting to actually lay government owned cables and service to houses. In fact, they are suggesting something else entirely.... offering incentives to private companies because the private sector has shown that they are either incapable or unwilling to do it themselves

They're suggesting that they take more money from over taxed citizens to prop up another unprofitable (and unnecessary) enterprise.

and it is beginning to hurt the country as a whole on the global scale (because the FCC is able to recognize the fact that the internet is used for a lot more then just people looking at YouTube).

Yes, it's used for watching MySpace, Facebook, Hulu, message boards, downloading porn, eBay, Amazon.com, extortion, phishing, etc. Oh yes, and emailing grandbaby pictures to each other. Things that don't warrent robbing my pockets.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand. What part of "satellite service is costly and unreliable" do you refuse to comprehend? Do some searching and you'll find that it's the absolute worst when it comes to customer service.

Someone has to be. The point is people do not need high speed Internet. I know a lot of people using dial-up and they're living fulfilled lives by not sitting in front of a computer monitor all the time like too many of the people here.

---------------

I can see that you have a one-track mind and refuse to believe that people who live beyond conventional broadband and DSL coverage areas should remain restricted. After all, the ONLY reason people use Teh InterWeb Thingy is for Facebook, MySpace, shopping, and entertainment Therefore, dial-up is perfectly acceptable.

All you want to do is argue using the same three facts rather than admitting you're wrong and that you have zero proof that this Internet service will be soley funded by taxpayers.

 

[Squiggy]

This conversation in 1905:

"People only use automobiles for relaxing Sunday drives therefore there is no need to go more than 7 miles per hour."

 

[Data Holmes]

This conversation in 1905:

"People only use automobiles for relaxing Sunday drives therefore there is no need to go more than 7 miles per hour."

They have a point...

 

[John Picard]

This conversation in 1905:

"People only use automobiles for relaxing Sunday drives therefore there is no need to go more than 7 miles per hour."

Quoted for the EFFING truth. Thank you.

 

[scotthm]

FWIW, I use the internet to make money with the video game blog that I write.

That's wonderful.

Also, MySpace and Facebook have been invaluable to me as a communications tool. They both helped me to re-establish contact with a old friends I haven't heard from in years.

OK. Why should I be helping to subsidize that?

I can see that you have a one-track mind and refuse to believe that people who live beyond conventional broadband and DSL coverage areas should remain restricted.

I've never said that. People make tradeoffs when they choose a place to live. That's no excuse for robbing my pockets.

All you want to do is argue using the same three facts rather than admitting you're wrong and that you have zero proof that this Internet service will be soley funded by taxpayers.

I've never suggested that it would be 'solely funded by taxpayers', I just expect it to be heavily subsidized by tax payers. That's enough for me not to like it, since most people don't need broadband Internet access.

This conversation in 1905:

"People only use automobiles for relaxing Sunday drives therefore there is no need to go more than 7 miles per hour."

Very clever. Has the government been helping us to pay our car notes all these years? If so, I've been cheated.

---------------

 

[TEH BABA]

Where else do iget my asian lesbian porn?

 

[msbae]

FWIW, I use the internet to make money with the video game blog that I write.

That's wonderful.

Also, MySpace and Facebook have been invaluable to me as a communications tool. They both helped me to re-establish contact with a old friends I haven't heard from in years.

OK. Why should I be helping to subsidize that?

I was using them as examples of things you can do with the internet that don't involve YouTube or some other form of entertainment. Also, the Web has become a far better way to acquire information than other media like Radio and TV. Just imagine if you had to get news from the Alphabet soup networks and couldn't get Drudge or Slate. We'd never get anything even remotely resembling balanced reports. Giving people more choices for acquiring information of all kinds is reason enough to invest in the internet as a form of infrastructure.

 

[Data Holmes]

Where else do iget my asian lesbian porn?

Sorry baba, that's been ruled "obscene" by the FCC and any sources of such "material" has to be banned by the federal firewall.

 

[John Picard]

FWIW, I use the internet to make money with the video game blog that I write.

That's wonderful.

Also, MySpace and Facebook have been invaluable to me as a communications tool. They both helped me to re-establish contact with a old friends I haven't heard from in years.

OK. Why should I be helping to subsidize that?

I was using them as examples of things you can do with the internet that don't involve YouTube or some other form of entertainment. Also, the Web has become a far better way to acquire information than other media like Radio and TV. Just imagine if you had to get news from the Alphabet soup networks and couldn't get Drudge or Slate. We'd never get anything even remotely resembling balanced reports. Giving people more choices for acquiring information of all kinds is reason enough to invest in the internet as a form of infrastructure.

Give it up. Scott is bound and determined that everyone should be saddled with early technology and there should be no progression beyond that.

 

[scotthm]

Scott is bound and determined that everyone should be saddled with early technology and there should be no progression beyond that.

Totally untrue. I just don't think everyone needs broadband Internet access, and the government doesn't need to be spending my money to ensure that everyone out in the boonies gets cheap broadband access.

---------------

 

[Michael Chris]

I think wide spread development of broadband infrastructure would be exceptionally helpful for commerce. Especially if they are able to use one of the proposed high speed wireless systems.

 

[John Picard]

Scott is bound and determined that everyone should be saddled with early technology and there should be no progression beyond that.

Totally untrue. I just don't think everyone needs broadband Internet access, and the government doesn't need to be spending my money to ensure that everyone out in the boonies gets cheap broadband access.

---------------

Really? Do you feel the same way about telephone service? What about subsidies that keep dying airlines afloat? There are times when Government investment will actually reap a reward. Again, "If you build it, they will come". And in closing, you don't know all of the facts and as such you're making baseless arguments against this proposal. You parrot the same BS over and over:

People only use the Internet for shopping and MySpace. They can use dial-up.

How profound