Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cord Cutters Club (Internet TV)' started by Scott Greczkowski, May 13, 2014.
Burger King trolls Ajit Pai.
Interesting thread guys. And I don't understand everything that is going on with internet service. But, it seems as though there is no logical difference between a business getting between 2 CB radio users and legally charging them to use the airwaves, and what is going on with the internet.
I am in a rural area with a small, monopoly phone company. Crazy expensive DSL. I had it removed because it is not worth the cost and they charged for lots of things that have nothing to do with the internet.
That leaves satellite internet. Again, ridiculously expensive and it has limitations.
Without going into a lot of detail, in my situation I would have to pay for internet in 3 locations,
My only solution? I have internet through the cable company at one location (expensive enough and not at my home.)
I am now using a smartphone as a Wi-Fi hotpot. Yes, it has lot's of limitations. The US needs to step up to the plate and do something about all this profiting off something that was supposed to be free in the first place.
I submit that if you're going to live out in the boonies, you can't expect all the trappings that come with living in the 'burbs.
The cost of installing service way out in East Jesus is often measured in tens of thousands of dollars per customer and I doubt that the general public would approve of that kind of a subsidy.
Thanks for your reply Harshness.
No. I am not suggesting any company run a cable to my house so I can have affordable/reliable internet.
I'm making a much larger point. I think we as a nation are behind on making the internet available to everybody, or at least a huge majority of the country, be it satellite, DSL, or anything else. No, I don't live in the desert behind some rocks.
In fact, years ago fiber optics were run in my county to make us on the leading edge of technology concerning the internet. I'm not sure who paid for it but I'm sure the government had something to do with it because as of now NOT ONE person has it. My point is, from what I have read (no sources to cite at the moment) lesser developed countries have done a better job getting internet service to the masses. JMHO.
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that it sounded like you expected some gubmint to step up and do it and that isn't typically how it works.
The government can only do so much and to ask someone in San Diego or NYC to subsidize Internet service for someone outside of Wagontire, Oregon or Antlers, Oklahoma seems unfair. That said, I recall that the feds poured quite a bit of money into Excede.
Chances are that the fiber was run by a regional utility company (and not necessarily a telecom utility).
Much is made about how other countries have such wonderful Internet coverage but many of those countries have a much higher population density than the areas of the US that we're talking about and some of those countries have land areas that are smaller than our larger states to cover. Number one on the list is the Falkland Islands that has a population of just over 3,400 people. Iceland and Bermuda are next on the list followed by Scandinavia.
Internet isn't an inalienable right and it isn't an absolutely critical utility so if some region is committed to joining the Internet age, they need to collaborate on a solution rather than expecting one to be handed to them.
Maybe LEO and MEO will work out.
Both of those will surely have to be carefully coordinated international efforts.
Governors of Montana and New York sign executive orders requiring net neutrality in their states.
NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo makes net neutrality state policy with executive order
Ah... Just what do you call a "critical utility"? I can go it alone on power, water, and sewer, and do that in the middle of nowhere. So those 3 can't be some critical utility that anybody needs the government to provide. But for telecommunications including the Internet, we just can't do without somebody somewhere making the connection. It makes sense to me to ask for government to step up to the plate and coordinate, standardize, and perhaps even subsidize, for the public good.
These "mandates" only cover the ISPs that the state gubmint uses and what they use probably isn't what we use. I would imagine that more than a few of them exist solely to service the government anyway.
On the other hand, the bigger Comcast gets, the more likely they get nailed (though I imagine they will probably drop all State of New York accounts and pay the fees associated with breaking the contract).
I think there is a book about something like that..it was called 1984
I assert that it isn't reasonable to lump broadband Internet in with telecommunications.
Phone service is a lifeline service. 25+Mbps Internet certainly isn't. Neither are 32' wide paved roads with sidewalks, storm drains and streetlights. If those things are important to you, you should move to them rather than expecting them to find you.
Surely this doesn't mean that you shouldn't support efforts to expand service areas but if you're looking at even thousands of dollars per customer, that's just too much for most terrestrial-based services.
I don't want a government handout. I simply think that the internet has become so necessary in relation to business, education, etc., that it should be considered part of our infrastructure. Like a highway, and other infrastructure.
People without it cannot compete.
Sorry, we must have posted at the same time.
That's my point exactly. You shouldn't have to have wide streets, streetlights, and sidewalks to have the internet.
The vast majority of that infrastructure is privately owned.
Highways, streets, sidewalks, most water providers, etc. are not privately owned.
I was referring to the internet.
I think we have differing understandings of "infrastructure."
I believe the internet has changed from a novelty to a necessity in the last 20 or so years. As such, should be regarded as a public utility, not a luxury such as HBO etc. A good example of technology changing from something that benefitted a few, to becoming of such importance it became part of our infrastructure, would be the transcontinental railroad in the 1800's. Privately owned, the government saw it's importance to the economy for everyone, and helped with eminent domain power land acquisition etc. If it were not for this understanding of importance as part of our infrastructure it would have been hobbled together piecemeal and a complete cluster
I say the internet is now such a necessity it should be considered a vital part of our infrastructure.
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, or trying to win a debate, just my 2 cents.
Let's be careful not to confuse having Internet access with having "broadband".
There is currently an option available for most but as with anything else, the closer to a population center you live, the more options you have and more often than not, the lower the price you pay.
The FCC seems to disagree with you. They pretty much stomped on the idea that Internet service is a utility.
There's a gargantuan difference between helping with legal issues and footing the bill. Both the TR and the Erie Canal were privately funded (gubmint sponsored bonds aren't gubmint money). Various government agencies would have to go through much greater number of hoops now to establish rights-of-way as there are so many more property owners now. I get the feeling that you want them to throw in a few billion in walking around money.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Shouldn't those who don't have it and want it contribute substantially to making it available?