Okay, I'll bite. Name a commercial enterprise the government HASN'T ed up when they got involved.
There was nothing to bite on in my response. I was simply letting you know that your responses were so clearly ill-informed that you'd be best suited watching this one from the sideline. You simply do not have the level of knowledge required to participate in the conversation.
Still, I'll humor you as this was in the news recently: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0IX0A120141113
As for net neutrality, maybe something like this is more your speed: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 11-18-2014 at 09:30 PM.
Th'Pussy with another emotional meltdown.
Govt hasn't ed up the Military Industrial Complex, still works great!
Th'Pussy with another emotional meltdown.
It's fine now because with few exceptions the net is largely neutral.
You want to end that and make your internet not fine.
Do you understand?
In this case, there's no "no government meddling". The internet was created by the government. The monopolies and regulations are as old as the internet itself.
There's no "no government intervention" version of all this. It's government picking A, B or C.
Option A lets ISPs abuse their monopoly position in detriment of content providers and consumers (this is what the 'new' internet looks like)
Option B prevents ISPs from abusing their monopoly position to extract ransom from content providers, which benefits both content providers and consumers (this is what the internet used to be until ISPs purposely started to slow down content providers expecting to extract a ransom)
Option C is likely a hack that lets ISPs abuse their monopoly power, while it allows content providers to 'offset' the ransom into consumers. I suspect this 'hybrid' approach is the likely one to succeed, since it's the one that basically screws over the consumer, which rarely has a voice or vote in these decisions.
Notice how there's no "let's get rid of monopolies" or "let's encourage compe ion where there's a monopoly" in any of the options.
Yoni is exactly as ignorant as Cruz on this issue, only I am willing to believe with Cruz it's an act.
Yeah, Cruz seemingly can't escape the occasion to drop the "regulation bad" soundbite.
Pretty good argument for preemptive action but you should try to work "mushroom cloud" into it somehow.
That would be disingenuous.
i really don't know much about this but are you taking Obama's side or does his meddling suck , per par? what is your preferred option?
posted it earlier...
thanks. probably should read from the beginning.
Only way that is ever going to happen is if we get an AG interested in applying anti-trust statutes rather than race based nonsense. Would helps solve this issue and go a long way regarding health care costs.
The new AG, another n!gg@ for y'all to hate, coddled the financial criminals in her previous job just like Holder.
Imagine the coddling, NON-fines by a Repug AG. Anti-trust enforcement is a political, not legal action.
FCC is run by a industry lobbyist, so nobody be surprised if Comcast-TWC merger is approved.
The Sherman Act etc are laws and enforcement of them is done through legal action. You dip s fail to understand that things can be many things at once. The forum is like dealing with the disabled.
Chattanooga's super-fast publicly owned Internet
Chattanooga, Tenn., may not be the first place that springs to mind when it comes to cutting-edge technology. But thanks to its ultra-high-speed Internet, the city has established itself as a center for innovation -- and an encouraging example for those frustrated with slow speeds and high costs from private broadband providers.
Chattanooga rolled out a fiber-optic network a few years ago that now offers speeds of up to 1000 Megabits per second, or 1 gigabit, for just $70 a month. A cheaper 100 Megabit plan costs $58 per month. Even the slower plan is still light-years ahead of the average U.S. connection speed, which stood at 9.8 megabits per second as of late last year, according to Akamai Technologies.
"It's really altered how we think of ourselves as a city," said Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke. "We're a midsized, southern city -- for us to be at the front of the technological curve rather than at the tail end is a real achievement."
As federal officials find themselves at the center of controversy over net neutrality and the regulation of private Internet service providers like Comcast(CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (TWC), Chattanooga offers an alternative model for keeping people connected. A city-owned agency, the Electric Power Board, runs its own network, offering higher-speed service than any of its private-sector compe ors can manage.
Related: Silicon Valley is fed up with slow Internet speeds
The problem with fiber networks is that they're hugely expensive to install and maintain, requiring operators to lay new wiring underground and link it to individual homes. Since 1996, cable operators have invested $210 billion in broadband networks and other infrastructure, according to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.
Since there's little compe ion in the broadband industry, some industry experts believe that there's little incentive for broadband providers to dramatically beef up their bandwidth and drastically improve their infrastructure.
Chattanooga's project started in 2008 with the goal of building a "smart" power grid for the city, capable of rerouting electricity on the fly to prevent outages in addition to carrying Internet traffic.
"It just didn't look like the private sector was going to bring true, high-speed connectivity to this market," EPB spokeswoman Danna Bailey said.
The city had to contend with lawsuits from Comcast and local cable operators as it worked to get the network up and running. But aided by an $111 million stimulus grant from the Department of Energy, the service was up and running by September 2009. The EPB currently has around 5,000 business customers along with 57,540 households, which have access to "triple play" bundles of video, phone and Internet service just like they would from a private provider.
"Deploying a network for telecommunications is not fundamentally different from deploying a network for power," said Benoit Felten, a broadband expert with Diffraction Analysis. "Chattanooga is the prime example of that, and it's absolutely worked."
The Federal Communications Commission recognizes the potential of muncipality-run broadband, saying earlier this year that it will push for the repeal of state and local laws supported by the cable industry that make it harder for cities to set up their own networks.
Related: Netflix blasts Internet providers, saying consumers "deserve better"
Chattanooga officials say the network has helped spark a burgeoning local tech scene and the relocation of a number of businesses, drawn by both the fast Internet and the reliability offered by the smart grid.
Hunter Lindsay, regional director of IT services firm Claris Networks, said the 85-person company moved its data-center operations from Knoxville to Chattanooga "just because of the network."
"It's logical for every city to do it, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen," Lindsay said.
Berke said Chattanooga regularly receives inquiries from other cities both in the U.S. and internationally that are interested in setting up their own networks. The city recently set up a task force to figure out how to bring the network to poorer families and make sure the community gains the maximum benefit.
"People understand that high-speed Internet access is quickly becoming a national infrastructure issue just like the highways were in the 1950s," Berke said. "If the private sector is unable to provide that kind of bandwidth because of the steep infrastructure investment, then just like highways in the 1950s, the government has to consider providing that support."
No Law Is Above The Man. The decision to enforce Sherman Act is a political one, like coddling the rampant criminals in the financial sector is a "paid political decision". Prosecutors have huge discretion in whom and what to prosecute.
I assume he's a smart guy, but he's Lex Luthor smart, WAY TOO smart for stupid Texans who voted him in to know what a bag he is.
Seems to me if Chattanooga is stealing businesses and their employees from areas without this faster internet, this would be incentive enough for companies (or local governments) to "dramatically beef up their bandwidth and drastically improve their infrastructure." After all, if your customers are leaving for greener pastures -- THAT IS COMPE ION. If Chattanooga can do it, so can San Antonio.
I'm not opposed to local governments attracting businesses if they can get their local population to vote for it. I'm simply opposed to the federal government, once again, trying to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to a very complex and variable landscape. It's not working with healthcare and it won't work with the internet.
If the local government can convince its population to pay for it, great. They already do it with sports venues and transportation.
"so can San Antonio."
tax-payer-funded, "socialist" municipal networks are ILLEGAL by Texas state law.
Repugs LOVE "free markets".
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/
and where are the TX tea baggers, those beloved FREEDOM!-lovin' marans, pushing for the "Freedom!" to install muni nets?
SA and Austin are prime candidates because both own huge fiber networks operated by their municipally owned electric utilities.
no San Antonio can't, it's illegal
Except San Antonio CAN'T do it, because the cable/internet companies you and Ted Cruz faithfully shill for have lobbied to ban local municipalities in Texas from offering broadband.
Anything else?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote