1. easier to do it when not transparent.... see Jonathan Gruber!!
Vacuous comment, Richard. Your original comment concerned the impending taxation based upon the designation as a "utility". I pointed out that such a designation was immaterial, a point you choose to ignore. Now you're on to transparency, and I suppose that next we'll have mirrors and the White Rabbit.
2. All government becomes bad, even when it starts out good. No need to look past our own government for that lesson
If this is indeed true, how is it that any government these days is anything other than "bad"? I pointed you to a specific example which might make the case to the contrary. I guess that you were tl;dr
3. I don't think they are, and they shouldn't be outside of competing for my money
In your area, how many companies are competing for your broadband dollars? Few in the U.S. have more than one provider and my experience is that in the few areas where there is more than one, there is no "competition". My area is served by both Verizon (FiOS) and Comcast but they run a duopoly - the prices are virtually identical. The notion of "competition" is great but it has to happen in more than name only. If you can quote some examples of real broadband competition then please help us out and tell us where we can get them.
LOL I don't trust them either, but if pressed, yes, more than any government!!!!
I trust FREE COMPETITION!!
That's part of the issue. There is limited space to run infrastructure. The infrastructure in a given area is owned by a specific company, and they provide the service. Your main source of competition in many areas would be mobile plans, but it's quite expensive (and device limited) to rely solely on that.
That's part of the issue. There is limited space to run infrastructure. The infrastructure in a given area is owned by a specific company, and they provide the service. Your main source of competition in many areas would be mobile plans, but it's quite expensive (and device limited) to rely solely on that.
Even wireless networks run on the back of the incumbent telco.
Laws are the supposed glue of society (such as it is). If you don't like the laws, you try to get them changed or break or ignore them at your own risk. It's a good thing the Constitution is so difficult to change, because of solid historical reasons.
When they are vague laws, they are pretty weak glue. I agree they shouldn't be changeable easily but they should be clarified because variable interpretations means they are changeable.
Also, you sidestepped the fact that you were completely wrong about the General Welfare clause by (paradoxically) blaming "everyone". Just sayin'.
All you demonstrated is that people in authority decided to ignore the part of the constitution that doesn't fit with their worldview. The main point is that the fact people even have to make rulings about the meaning behind historical statements is nuts. Make the decision based on what makes sense. This is the same problem religious people run into with ancient texts where they have to go back to the original versions and check the translations again and again trying to cover things like contraception that didn't even exist back then. People need to get rid of the idea that people who lived and died hundreds/thousand of years ago were smarter, more experienced or more authoritative than all the people who live today.
The phrase "general welfare" has a clear interpretation as a goal, the part that people debate ad nauseam is how best to reach that goal:
The entire point of having a government is to make lives better for the people as a whole. Although some people are bothered by the idea of "general welfare" being interpreted to mean unlimited spending, that can never be the interpretation because burdensome taxation doesn't promote the general welfare of the people so that in itself is a limiting factor.
When it comes to issues like healthcare or communications, the way you decide which way to go is very simple: you just weight up the outcomes and determine which is going to be better for the people as a whole. Which route leads to lower costs, higher quality, more coverage, better sustainability and so on. We already know which route doesn't:
If there was actual free competition, you would see much better pricing, content, service.
You have this as an example in home/auto insurance, retail products, and local services all trying to be better, cheaper then the many other offerings competing for your dollars.
You can't lump every industry in together because they have different infrastructure costs and complexity, which act as a limiting factor for competition. The fact that every company can't dig up every road for their own cable is a limiting factor that doesn't apply to something like insurance.
Having the government controlling the cabling won't raise costs because it increases the number of competitors that can lease the lines and takes the infrastructure costs away from each of them and spreads the costs out. This is the whole idea of insurance. If too few people pay relative to the claimants then costs go up but if they get loads of people paying then costs go down. It makes sense that there are things everyone should have and so those get bundled in with a national insurance or some other taxation.
Sounds like just what we need. If I'm paying $145 a month for 60 Gigabits Per Sec, I'm paying to get my content faster when I want it. To throttle my service down to 5 because they made a deal with another company is total crap! This simple solution is that anytime a paying customer's service is potentially effected by one of these contracts their bill is automatically credited by the percentage of decreased available service.
If I'm paying $145 a month for 60 Gigabits Per Sec, I'm paying to get my content faster when I want it. To throttle my service down to 5 because they made a deal with another company is total crap!
So I assume you like being paying for useless services. It's one thing if heavy trafficking in my area causes network congestion but for my download to be impeded because my neighbors are watch netfix a lot. I have a problem with that. Up to should never be selective service degrading for paying customers. That would be like Apple paying Verizon to give priority signal to iphones and drop calls from Android phones if there are too many phones on a tower.
So I assume you like being paying for useless services. It's one thing if heavy trafficking in my area causes network congestion but for my download to be impeded because my neighbors are watch netfix a lot. I have a problem with that. Up to should never be selective service degrading for paying customers. That would be like Apple paying Verizon to give priority signal to iphones and drop calls from Android phones if there are too many phones on a tower.
Basically they're double dipping. They want to charge a premium for the sending party and the receiving party. All this does it raise prices for everybody.
Basically they're double dipping. They want to charge a premium for the sending party and the receiving party. All this does it raise prices for everybody.
Agreed! The Netflix of the world will then charge more for their service and smaller companies services will seem to be flawed when it's really the ISP creating the disparity. Another solution would be a requirement that they tell you everytime your service is degraded and why.
So I assume you like being paying for useless services. It's one thing if heavy trafficking in my area causes network congestion but for my download to be impeded because my neighbors are watch netfix a lot. I have a problem with that. Up to should never be selective service degrading for paying customers. That would be like Apple paying Verizon to give priority signal to iphones and drop calls from Android phones if there are too many phones on a tower.
The last mile isn't the issue. You could be getting 60 Mbps on a speed test, but get Netflix at 5 Mbps. That means your ISP is throttling down Netflix from the source.
Agreed! The Netflix of the world will then charge more for their service and smaller companies services will seem to be flawed when it's really the ISP creating the disparity. Another solution would be a requirement that they tell you everytime your service is degraded and why.
The internet is called the information superhighway, yet what happens on real life highways? Trucks are charged more than cars at tolls. That's an accepted practice, so why is it so different for the 'trucks' of the information superhighway to be charged extra?
Basically they're double dipping. They want to charge a premium for the sending party and the receiving party. All this does it raise prices for everybody.
The last mile isn't the issue. You could be getting 60 Mbps on a speed test, but get Netflix at 5 Mbps. That means your ISP is throttling down Netflix from the source.
The ISP only has control of the last mile which is the problem. Basically they are filtering at the switch in your neighborhood.
The internet is called the information superhighway, yet what happens on real life highways? Trucks are charged more than cars at tolls. That's an accepted practice, so why is it so different for the 'trucks' of the information superhighway to be charged extra?
That's the problem. The consumer is already paying premium prices for the data to stream at the higher speed. In your analogy, if the we were paying extra to drive at 80 mph and have access to the zip lane, but they allowed trucking companies to pay more and excuse you from your paid service forcing you to drive in the slow lane at random times and drive 20 mph. Imagine paying for a plane ticket across country, but when you arrive the put you on a bus because a big company wanted to use the plan you were scheduled for.
So I assume you like being paying for useless services.
Well, you know what they say about assumptions.
Originally Posted by genovelle
Imagine paying for a plane ticket across country, but when you arrive the put you on a bus because a big company wanted to use the plan you were scheduled for.
Or imagine this: we actually build more “roads”, actually improve prices and speeds, and make this issue moot. Being able to live stream 1080p, for example, shouldn’t be a concern for anyone...
Well, you know what they say about assumptions.
I do. It's the same thing they say about people who tend to always show up to make illogical post contrary to what anyone else says.
Or imagine this: we actually build more “roads”, actually improve prices and speeds, and make this issue moot. Being able to live stream 1080p, for example, shouldn’t be a concern for anyone...
Or imagine this: we actually build more “roads”, actually improve prices and speeds, and make this issue moot. Being able to live stream 1080p, for example, shouldn’t be a concern for anyone...
That would have been done 5 years ago if it wasn't politically unpopular. If the government used tax dollars to build out the last mile and we could have any provider we wanted, this would not be an issue at all. That provider would pay a fee for maintenance as long as they are the provider.
Comments
Guys, you really do need to get a grip on reality. You aren't there yet.
1. the government can regulate and tax however it wants. No "utility" designation needed
2. if you think that all government is bad, then read this American's description of his experience in France.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/
3. if you think that AT&T and Verizon have your best interests at heart, it's reality-check time
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/NY-AG-Slams-Verizon-For-Killing-DSL-POTS-124888
1. easier to do it when not transparent.... see Jonathan Gruber!!
2. All government becomes bad, even when it starts out good. No need to look past our own government for that lesson
3. I don't think they are, and they shouldn't be outside of competing for my money
1. easier to do it when not transparent.... see Jonathan Gruber!!
Vacuous comment, Richard. Your original comment concerned the impending taxation based upon the designation as a "utility". I pointed out that such a designation was immaterial, a point you choose to ignore. Now you're on to transparency, and I suppose that next we'll have mirrors and the White Rabbit.
2. All government becomes bad, even when it starts out good. No need to look past our own government for that lesson
If this is indeed true, how is it that any government these days is anything other than "bad"? I pointed you to a specific example which might make the case to the contrary. I guess that you were tl;dr
3. I don't think they are, and they shouldn't be outside of competing for my money
In your area, how many companies are competing for your broadband dollars? Few in the U.S. have more than one provider and my experience is that in the few areas where there is more than one, there is no "competition". My area is served by both Verizon (FiOS) and Comcast but they run a duopoly - the prices are virtually identical. The notion of "competition" is great but it has to happen in more than name only. If you can quote some examples of real broadband competition then please help us out and tell us where we can get them.
LOL I don't trust them either, but if pressed, yes, more than any government!!!!
I trust FREE COMPETITION!!
That's part of the issue. There is limited space to run infrastructure. The infrastructure in a given area is owned by a specific company, and they provide the service. Your main source of competition in many areas would be mobile plans, but it's quite expensive (and device limited) to rely solely on that.
Even wireless networks run on the back of the incumbent telco.
When they are vague laws, they are pretty weak glue. I agree they shouldn't be changeable easily but they should be clarified because variable interpretations means they are changeable.
There are other comedic liberal outlets involved.
All you demonstrated is that people in authority decided to ignore the part of the constitution that doesn't fit with their worldview. The main point is that the fact people even have to make rulings about the meaning behind historical statements is nuts. Make the decision based on what makes sense. This is the same problem religious people run into with ancient texts where they have to go back to the original versions and check the translations again and again trying to cover things like contraception that didn't even exist back then. People need to get rid of the idea that people who lived and died hundreds/thousand of years ago were smarter, more experienced or more authoritative than all the people who live today.
The phrase "general welfare" has a clear interpretation as a goal, the part that people debate ad nauseam is how best to reach that goal:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/enough-is-enough-why-general-welfare-limits-spending
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/03/james-madison-vs-alexander-hamilton.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare
The entire point of having a government is to make lives better for the people as a whole. Although some people are bothered by the idea of "general welfare" being interpreted to mean unlimited spending, that can never be the interpretation because burdensome taxation doesn't promote the general welfare of the people so that in itself is a limiting factor.
When it comes to issues like healthcare or communications, the way you decide which way to go is very simple: you just weight up the outcomes and determine which is going to be better for the people as a whole. Which route leads to lower costs, higher quality, more coverage, better sustainability and so on. We already know which route doesn't:
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/us-broadband-speed-cost-infographic/
"The U.S. is ranked 30th in the world in broadband speeds, behind the likes of Iceland, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Russia, and the U.K."
You can't lump every industry in together because they have different infrastructure costs and complexity, which act as a limiting factor for competition. The fact that every company can't dig up every road for their own cable is a limiting factor that doesn't apply to something like insurance.
Having the government controlling the cabling won't raise costs because it increases the number of competitors that can lease the lines and takes the infrastructure costs away from each of them and spreads the costs out. This is the whole idea of insurance. If too few people pay relative to the claimants then costs go up but if they get loads of people paying then costs go down. It makes sense that there are things everyone should have and so those get bundled in with a national insurance or some other taxation.
Shouldn't they just double up on lines and nodes?
Ah, more government control. Just what we need.
Sounds like just what we need. If I'm paying $145 a month for 60 Gigabits Per Sec, I'm paying to get my content faster when I want it. To throttle my service down to 5 because they made a deal with another company is total crap! This simple solution is that anytime a paying customer's service is potentially effected by one of these contracts their bill is automatically credited by the percentage of decreased available service.
You’re paying for speeds up to that.
So I assume you like being paying for useless services. It's one thing if heavy trafficking in my area causes network congestion but for my download to be impeded because my neighbors are watch netfix a lot. I have a problem with that. Up to should never be selective service degrading for paying customers. That would be like Apple paying Verizon to give priority signal to iphones and drop calls from Android phones if there are too many phones on a tower.
Basically they're double dipping. They want to charge a premium for the sending party and the receiving party. All this does it raise prices for everybody.
The last mile isn't the issue. You could be getting 60 Mbps on a speed test, but get Netflix at 5 Mbps. That means your ISP is throttling down Netflix from the source.
The internet is called the information superhighway, yet what happens on real life highways? Trucks are charged more than cars at tolls. That's an accepted practice, so why is it so different for the 'trucks' of the information superhighway to be charged extra?
Well, you know what they say about assumptions.
Or imagine this: we actually build more “roads”, actually improve prices and speeds, and make this issue moot. Being able to live stream 1080p, for example, shouldn’t be a concern for anyone...
So you haven’t learn anything about just making things up.
Just come off it, man. Either reply to what is written or don’t bother wasting our time with this obfuscatory tripe.