Nationwide Wireless Broadband

[Balta1701]

And yet this system was in place loooooooooooooooong before the Supreme Court opened the door for CORPORATIONS and unions to have more influence in elections.

Has Congress ever passed a bill attempting to allow for more private money influencing campaigns, or has Congress at least superficially tried to cut back on the availability of campaign contributions?

[southsider2k5]

Has Congress ever passed a bill attempting to allow for more private money influencing campaigns, or has Congress at least superficially tried to cut back on the availability of campaign contributions?

 

There is one quick and easy way to do that which doesn't require pages of laws and wastes of debates...

 

"No."

 

Congress should try it sometime.

[Y2HH]

If Balta ran for office I'd contribute just so I can b**** that he accepts campaign contributions from advocates of the Health Insurance industry.

[lostfan]

If Balta ran for office I'd contribute just so I can b**** that he accepts campaign contributions from advocates of the Health Insurance industry.

I lol'd.

[Y2HH]

I lol'd.

 

You're the only one...I don't think anyone else gets me. :/

[lostfan]

Ok so the chart/map I posted the other day, it got some predictable replies but I did it for a reason. Since broadband first came on the scene for most people here about a decade or so ago, give or take, it hasn't been moved very far forward and the map was showing how other countries with similar means to us have done so much better. It wasn't a priority during the past decade, and I don't know the exact reasons but I'm going to assume, based on the ideological makeup of the last administration, that the people in charge were content to leave growth in this area up to market forces, and that it was going to take care of itself. It wasn't like it was a question of the government picking winners and losers either since there really wasn't much doubt about how broadband was going to be the backbone for other technologies in the very near future. My point was that this kind of pure dogma isn't always the best option and that these other countries whose governments have taken on more of a leadership role have gotten much better results. I'm just talking about plans, policies, and regulations, things like that - not necessarily subsidies, that is something I'll agree with conservatives on since our government has a pretty s***ty track record of ending subsidies once they've served their purpose.

 

This brings me to another point I was thinking about. This, in a nutshell, is why I always fall left of center, but not all the way to the left. I don't want the government involved in most things except when it's necessary, or when I see some kind of verifiable evidence that government involvement in something makes things more equitable, or actually promotes growth. To a conservative, that's a philosophical question, government should never be involved in any markets except for the absolute basics like deterring criminal activity, even if the policy actually causes growth, because it's a basic principle of freedom. I agree up until the last part - I'm a practical guy, so doing something that limits growth just on a principle doesn't really make sense to me.

[Y2HH]

Ok so the chart/map I posted the other day, it got some predictable replies but I did it for a reason. Since broadband first came on the scene for most people here about a decade or so ago, give or take, it hasn't been moved very far forward and the map was showing how other countries with similar means to us have done so much better. It wasn't a priority during the past decade, and I don't know the exact reasons but I'm going to assume, based on the ideological makeup of the last administration, that the people in charge were content to leave growth in this area up to market forces, and that it was going to take care of itself. It wasn't like it was a question of the government picking winners and losers either since there really wasn't much doubt about how broadband was going to be the backbone for other technologies in the very near future. My point was that this kind of pure dogma isn't always the best option and that these other countries whose governments have taken on more of a leadership role have gotten much better results. I'm just talking about plans, policies, and regulations, things like that - not necessarily subsidies, that is something I'll agree with conservatives on since our government has a pretty s***ty track record of ending subsidies once they've served their purpose.

 

This brings me to another point I was thinking about. This, in a nutshell, is why I always fall left of center, but not all the way to the left. I don't want the government involved in most things except when it's necessary, or when I see some kind of verifiable evidence that government involvement in something makes things more equitable, or actually promotes growth. To a conservative, that's a philosophical question, government should never be involved in any markets except for the absolute basics like deterring criminal activity, even if the policy actually causes growth, because it's a basic principle of freedom. I agree up until the last part - I'm a practical guy, so doing something that limits growth just on a principle doesn't really make sense to me.

 

I've personally seen my internet service go from:

 

Since the mid 80's when I first got involved.

 

300baud > 1200baud > 2400baud > 9600baud > 19200baud > 28k8baud > 56kdownbaud > 128k/128k sdsl > 512k/128k adsl > 1mbit/512k adsl > 2mbit/1mbit cable > 5mbit/2mbit cable > 12mbit/2mbit cable > 24mbit/10mbit cable (what I have now).

 

So to say it hasn't gone anywhere is nonsense. Those are amazing jumps in speed considering the sheer size of this country.

 

Unless you live in po-dunk, good internet service exists in many places and it's getting better by the day, with Verizon FIOS and Uverse beginning to step in, we are about to enter a boon era in terms of speed. And the po-dunk areas will eventually catch on, but maybe that's where the government needs to go spread it's debt...err, wealth, to bring them up to speed. Private companies have little need to spend billions expanding networks to towns where 3 people live. The increased competition from all of these companies, and more are coming, will put downward pressure on pricing, etc.

 

If anything, the government can push these companies to do more, which isn't a bad thing...I just don't want them to suddenly start imposing added taxes, fees and other such garbage (such as they will) the minute they get involved.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

I've personally seen my internet service go from:

 

Since the mid 80's when I first got involved.

 

300baud > 1200baud > 2400baud > 9600baud > 19200baud > 28k8baud > 56kdownbaud > 128k/128k sdsl > 512k/128k adsl > 1mbit/512k adsl > 2mbit/1mbit cable > 5mbit/2mbit cable > 12mbit/2mbit cable > 24mbit/10mbit cable (what I have now).

 

So to say it hasn't gone anywhere is nonsense. Those are amazing jumps in speed considering the sheer size of this country.

 

Unless you live in po-dunk, good internet service exists in many places and it's getting better by the day, with Verizon FIOS and Uverse beginning to step in, we are about to enter a boon era in terms of speed. And the po-dunk areas will eventually catch on, but maybe that's where the government needs to go spread it's debt...err, wealth, to bring them up to speed. Private companies have little need to spend billions expanding networks to towns where 3 people live. The increased competition from all of these companies, and more are coming, will put downward pressure on pricing, etc.

 

Consider them "Bridges to Nowhere".

[Balta1701]

Consider them "Bridges to Nowhere".

As I've stressed before...the bridge that we're failing to build right now is to this no where called New York City. Or Los Angeles. Whatever.

[Y2HH]

As I've stressed before...the bridge that we're failing to build right now is to this no where called New York City. Or Los Angeles. Whatever.

 

Um, no.

 

So wrong you are almost right again via coming around the other side of WAY wrong.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Um, no.

You may not want to admit it, but compared to the rest of the western world, yeah.

[southsideirish71]

You may not want to admit it, but compared to the rest of the western world, yeah.

 

Balta your assessment of this is wrong. I personally oversee a global wan that is in 45 countries around the world. I have contracted, paid bills for, and have installed most of our internet connections around the world and can tell you that this outcry on how backwards our broadband is, is overstated at best. Sure in some of the larger European cities you can get cheap VDSL technology that provides some bang for your buck. However we are deploying that same technology here, except its branded as UVerse and FiOS. I have an office in London that has a 25 meg VDSL connection that is cheap ( 150 bucks US ) and great. In Newcastle I can only get a 6 meg down/1 meg up link and its not as cheap ( 300 bucks US ) and is problematic at best. Its like that all over the world. Rarely have I seen a place where I have said to myself I wish I had what they have from a connectivity state. My comcast connection is pretty amazing for the price to bandwidth ratio. As far as advancing broadband access, its a matter of infrastructure investment versus revenue. I had a location in Australia that was just outside the city. I was paying 6k for a 2 meg E1 circuit. We were stuck with this. No fiber in the area. Constant calls to many an ISP went with well you have no infrastructure in the area. 6 months ago a very large international company moves in and bam we get a notice a month ago that metro ethernet is being installed. So we now have a 10 meg circuit for 2k. When I asked our account rep, they stated that the revenue from that company next door allowed them to justify running fiber in the area.

Edited March 24, 2010 by southsideirish71

[lostfan]

I've personally seen my internet service go from:

 

Since the mid 80's when I first got involved.

 

300baud > 1200baud > 2400baud > 9600baud > 19200baud > 28k8baud > 56kdownbaud > 128k/128k sdsl > 512k/128k adsl > 1mbit/512k adsl > 2mbit/1mbit cable > 5mbit/2mbit cable > 12mbit/2mbit cable > 24mbit/10mbit cable (what I have now).

 

So to say it hasn't gone anywhere is nonsense. Those are amazing jumps in speed considering the sheer size of this country.

 

Unless you live in po-dunk, good internet service exists in many places and it's getting better by the day, with Verizon FIOS and Uverse beginning to step in, we are about to enter a boon era in terms of speed. And the po-dunk areas will eventually catch on, but maybe that's where the government needs to go spread it's debt...err, wealth, to bring them up to speed. Private companies have little need to spend billions expanding networks to towns where 3 people live. The increased competition from all of these companies, and more are coming, will put downward pressure on pricing, etc.

 

If anything, the government can push these companies to do more, which isn't a bad thing...I just don't want them to suddenly start imposing added taxes, fees and other such garbage (such as they will) the minute they get involved.

I didn't say it "hasn't gone anywhere" I said it hasn't gone very far forward, sure, maybe I could've used some more precise words but I didn't think the point was lost on anyone. I actually have about the same thing you have and I was giddy when it was installed, but I actually was thinking "seriously, what the hell took so long?" and I am kind of lucky because I live in one of Verizon's test markets so we got FIOS before. But just like you said, we are about to enter a boon era, we were just kind of limping along before.

 

I'm also not really talking about these nowhere towns because that's another logistical issue entirely, but there are the mega-corridors from, say, LA to Seattle, DC to Boston, and the Rust Belt w/Chicago and that is probably 2/3 of the population of this country actually. Yeah, we are moving forward with some of this stuff, but compared to some other countries (again, only talking about the populated areas) we've fallen behind and we've been penetrating slower, and it's still pretty expensive (let's say I have a lot, but I get what I pay for).

 

I don't say this to bash the telecommunications industry or anything like that. I'm just saying I wish we'd been more forward-thinking in the last few years than we have been.

Edited March 24, 2010 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

Here's a CNN piece comparing US broadband abilities to the rest of the world. South Korea and Slovakia, notably.