- Status
Wow, I am surprised at how many people are interpreting this article incorrectly (at least irrationally) and then going off a tangent.
There are two things indicated in the article:
1. The US government is trying to build infrastructure to ensure the majority of the country has access to broadband internet services (ie. similar to how the government had to lay down water pipes, sewage treatment plants, roads, etc) by using public funds (through the stimulus package). The only controversy here is whether you consider the internet (@ broadband speed) to be an important element of a country's infrastructure or not. This has nothing to do with the government regulating pricing or trying to take over any businesses, they're just trying to expand the structure required for broadband speeds to ensure more people have the choice/access.
2. The US government wants ISPs to disclose information regarding their ACTUAL performance in the areas they service. This is basic Accounting 101, if you say you spent $10, show me the receipt. Same idea here, if you charged someone $XX for Y speed, show me the proof. Of course ISPs don't want to release the info since its easier to make a claim and not have to prove it. Ultimately, this is no different that "fuel economy" ratings on cars. Someone needs to make a common formula that everyone adheres or else you'd have everyone saying they get 70MPG with no proof to back it up.
I'm not saying that there is no reason to be in disagreement or against the government initiative but no one is actually raising valid points of contention and instead going off on tangents on what they deem to be ulterior government motives. I think the only comment I read that was anywhere near the ballpark was the fellow mentioning the blatant overspending on surveys/studies and I would agree although its not just limited to this survey/study.
There are two things indicated in the article:
1. The US government is trying to build infrastructure to ensure the majority of the country has access to broadband internet services (ie. similar to how the government had to lay down water pipes, sewage treatment plants, roads, etc) by using public funds (through the stimulus package). The only controversy here is whether you consider the internet (@ broadband speed) to be an important element of a country's infrastructure or not. This has nothing to do with the government regulating pricing or trying to take over any businesses, they're just trying to expand the structure required for broadband speeds to ensure more people have the choice/access.
2. The US government wants ISPs to disclose information regarding their ACTUAL performance in the areas they service. This is basic Accounting 101, if you say you spent $10, show me the receipt. Same idea here, if you charged someone $XX for Y speed, show me the proof. Of course ISPs don't want to release the info since its easier to make a claim and not have to prove it. Ultimately, this is no different that "fuel economy" ratings on cars. Someone needs to make a common formula that everyone adheres or else you'd have everyone saying they get 70MPG with no proof to back it up.
I'm not saying that there is no reason to be in disagreement or against the government initiative but no one is actually raising valid points of contention and instead going off on tangents on what they deem to be ulterior government motives. I think the only comment I read that was anywhere near the ballpark was the fellow mentioning the blatant overspending on surveys/studies and I would agree although its not just limited to this survey/study.
ikefu
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2009
- 135
- 0
- 18,630
My issue in all of this is not that the government wants to get broadband to more people, thats a good thing, its that they are missing the biggest problem. The REAL issue is that Comcast or whoever can buy a contract and lock out all competition from the area so they have no reason to excel or get better. Bring back competition and just watch what companies will do to expand service and lower prices. Its government granted contracts that are killing us and slowing broadband growth.
ikefu
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2009
- 135
- 0
- 18,630
My issue in all of this is not that the government wants to get broadband to more people, thats a good thing, its that they are missing the biggest problem. The REAL issue is that Comcast or whoever can buy a contract and lock out all competition from the area so they have no reason to excel or get better. Bring back competition and just watch what companies will do to expand service and lower prices. Its government granted contracts that are killing us and slowing broadband growth.
azxcvbnm321
Distinguished
- Oct 13, 2008
- 85
- 0
- 18,580
What is hilarious is that the stimulus does not actually provide funding or even propose for the government to BUILD broadband infrastructure. All it does is spend lots of money STUDYING how to provide broadband access. It doesn't take billions to figure out that all you have to do is either subsidize cable/DSl operators or the consumer and they will get broadband access.
Gee, can I have those billions now? It would just seem logical to me that all Americans would be upset at this obvious waste of money and pork. It would be something else if the government were actually building some broadband infrastructure, but it isn't, all the money is pure for commissions to study the problem and file useless reports of stuff we already know.
Furthermore, someone has to pay for all of this you know. I guess that makes me a Republican, though I'm registered Libertarian, to be concerned with having to pay for such useless crap. And yes, when it comes for the bill to be paid and politicians shout that taxes must be raised or else doomsday will occur, I will be one of the disgruntled and pissed. Of course I'll be demonized and accused of denying food to starving children when all I want to do is end the stupid programs like this one. How come politicians never give us the choice between raising taxes and eliminating the commission to study sustainable affordable broadband access? How come the choice is always between raising taxes and something involving needy children? Humm, maybe someone needs to think outside of the box a little?
Think about it this way, what if I were able to access your money and use your money to provide you with services that you ostensibly need? Now what if I said, hey, maybe you need a better computer. Look, I'm going to form a commission and investigate if you need a new computer and how to get a new computer for you. This commission will report every so often and it'll take years for it to arrive at a conclusion, but in the meantime, I'll have to spend your money to pay for their valuable services. With staff and everything, it'll cost you $5000 a month and there's no telling when this commission will be able to issue a recommendation. Would you remain calm? I'd bet you'd start screaming, "For $5000, I could just buy the best computer out there! I don't need this commission!". But oh no, I'm the government and I say that we need to investigate if you need this computer and just exactly what this computer will have in terms of components. You say, "But I already know it's an i7 loaded up with the max RAM a premium motherboard can handle and Crossfire or SLI the best GPU out there". No, I'm the government and I insist that YOU spend $5000 a month for the commission to come up with an unbiased opinion and they will be very through. They'll ask Tom's Hardware for the detailed results of their tests, and perhaps they'll even do their own tests, of course you'll have to pay for all the hardware they'll need to do the tests and that'll cost several thousand more...
You see, this is exactly what is happening with this commission to study broadband. It doesn't take a Republican to be outraged.
Gee, can I have those billions now? It would just seem logical to me that all Americans would be upset at this obvious waste of money and pork. It would be something else if the government were actually building some broadband infrastructure, but it isn't, all the money is pure for commissions to study the problem and file useless reports of stuff we already know.
Furthermore, someone has to pay for all of this you know. I guess that makes me a Republican, though I'm registered Libertarian, to be concerned with having to pay for such useless crap. And yes, when it comes for the bill to be paid and politicians shout that taxes must be raised or else doomsday will occur, I will be one of the disgruntled and pissed. Of course I'll be demonized and accused of denying food to starving children when all I want to do is end the stupid programs like this one. How come politicians never give us the choice between raising taxes and eliminating the commission to study sustainable affordable broadband access? How come the choice is always between raising taxes and something involving needy children? Humm, maybe someone needs to think outside of the box a little?
Think about it this way, what if I were able to access your money and use your money to provide you with services that you ostensibly need? Now what if I said, hey, maybe you need a better computer. Look, I'm going to form a commission and investigate if you need a new computer and how to get a new computer for you. This commission will report every so often and it'll take years for it to arrive at a conclusion, but in the meantime, I'll have to spend your money to pay for their valuable services. With staff and everything, it'll cost you $5000 a month and there's no telling when this commission will be able to issue a recommendation. Would you remain calm? I'd bet you'd start screaming, "For $5000, I could just buy the best computer out there! I don't need this commission!". But oh no, I'm the government and I say that we need to investigate if you need this computer and just exactly what this computer will have in terms of components. You say, "But I already know it's an i7 loaded up with the max RAM a premium motherboard can handle and Crossfire or SLI the best GPU out there". No, I'm the government and I insist that YOU spend $5000 a month for the commission to come up with an unbiased opinion and they will be very through. They'll ask Tom's Hardware for the detailed results of their tests, and perhaps they'll even do their own tests, of course you'll have to pay for all the hardware they'll need to do the tests and that'll cost several thousand more...
You see, this is exactly what is happening with this commission to study broadband. It doesn't take a Republican to be outraged.
nachowarrior
Distinguished
- May 28, 2007
- 189
- 0
- 18,630
broadband coverage and speed is pathetic in the united states. I have headaches with every isp i have encountered concerning the speeds and latencies. pathetic that i am forced to call them on this on a regular basis.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question What gaming Laptop isn't too flashy for school but also has good performance?
- Started by bendenvor111
- Replies: 1
-
Question how to : Samsung SM-S936U , factory reset?
- Started by Stan_13572
- Replies: 1
-
Question Switching SIM Cards from iPhone to Sony
- Started by Stan_13572
- Replies: 4
-
Question Can I download Tidal's music without paid subscription?- Started by pinkiena
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter