Overclock.net banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 112 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:
Special interests are already undermining the National Broadband Plan and the FCC's vagueness on implementation is playing into their hands -- Web users must act now.
SOURCE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,992 Posts
fast internet run by government seems better then slow internet by third party.
Maybe it will even be cheaper. People worried about being monitored isn't an issue, with millions of people online they won't pick single people out specifically.

And I doubt they will block websites, USA is alot different then the UK

Also, I didn't read the full article (was very long
) so apologises if what I said is irrelevant.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,683 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Pheatton
View Post

That article is pretty biased towards the goverment taking control over the broadband in this country. Sure we need a better system but a government run one is not the answer.

I fail to see why people are so anti-Govt.

Personally, i think that the internet is part of our essential infrastructure, thus the Govt should be the one primarily responsible for making sure it is set up and maintained. From there, 3rd party companies can lease out lines. This would provide customers/citizens with plenty of competition and much better rates than what they've seen in the past.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,037 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Pheatton
View Post

That article is pretty biased towards the goverment taking control over the broadband in this country. Sure we need a better system but a government run one is not the answer.

Well, how long are you going to give the private sector before you start to call them on it? It's only recently that any hope has been forthcoming (in the form of Google promising to offer insane internet connections in selected cities), and even then, rural areas are left in the cold... or, rather, in the dialup. If there's one thing that surely the anti-government side has to agree on, it's that government moves slowly; that means that by any reasonable estimate, the plan started development before Google's announcement was made public, when there was still little hope for American internet. If anything, you should be congratulating your government for actually trying to do something proactive.
 

·
No u
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
errrrr.... inb4 political battle rages soon.

Well, it would be nice for the U.S to expand great speeds and give small cities broadband, but god its going to take a butt load of money to run Fiber, although this would create a nice amount of jobs through out the U.S
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
I would definitely say that internet is a privilege and not a necessity. The government should not be wasting money to provide people with something that they should work for.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by savagebunny
View Post

errrrr.... inb4 political battle rages soon.

Well, it would be nice for the U.S to expand great speeds and give small cities broadband, but god its going to take a butt load of money to run Fiber, although this would create a nice amount of jobs through out the U.S

How much dark fiber is still avaliable?

Quote:


Originally Posted by vp29
View Post

I would definitely say that internet is a privilege and not a necessity. The government should not be wasting money to provide people with something that they should work for.

Internet is becoming a necessity... just like mail.

If a ISP won't provide faster bandwidth or provide a connection at all... how do propose people "to work for it"?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,013 Posts
why is it always "the government will run the internet"? Why can't it be "The government imposes standards to be followed by the private sector"? In topics like these, it always goes to "no government running my stuffs" type comments. Hell, if the government is looking at buying something that 100's of millions of americans use, they will get a hell of a better deal than anyone else out there do to them having such a huge bargaining ship.

Again, why does no one think, hey, maybe the government doesn't have to run it, maybe the government can mandate that certain standards are met and if the private sector fails to meet these standards, they get a specific license removed and can no longer offer service until they fix their issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
People have made the decision to live where they do, and if they do not like the internet connection they are getting in their area they have the freedom to move to a new area. If someone needs to connect to the internet to receive email so bad they can go to their local library. I just do not think it is right to have everyone pay for the internet of others. It proves that the united states is starting to become more socialist than it used to be.

Quote:


Originally Posted by stumped
View Post

Again, why does no one think, hey, maybe the government doesn't have to run it, maybe the government can mandate that certain standards are met and if the private sector fails to meet these standards, they get a specific license removed and can no longer offer service until they fix their issues.

The reason people do not like this is because a company should be able to make its own decisions. Also, adding these government mandates to these companies would increase the cost for the consumer due to increased costs on the isp.
 

·
No u
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by DuckieHo
View Post

How much dark fiber is still available?

Internet is becoming a necessity... just like mail.

If a ISP won't provide faster bandwidth or provide a connection at all... how do propose people "to work for it"?

Not sure how much dark fiber is available but assuming since Google is still buying a lot of it, its fairly cheap and its readily available
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,037 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by vp29
View Post

People have made the decision to live where they do, and if they do not like the internet connection they are getting in their area they have the freedom to move to a new area. If someone needs to connect to the internet to receive email so bad they can go to their local library. I just do not think it is right to have everyone pay for the internet of others. It proves that the united states is starting to become more socialist than it used to be.

Actually, real estate prices in rural areas tend to be dramatically lower than more developed areas, particularly after that whole economic meltdown ordeal. People living in the middle of nowhere often have little choice in the matter, except to sell for what little they can get and put themselves at the mercy of the banking system.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,683 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by stumped
View Post

why is it always "the government will run the internet"? Why can't it be "The government imposes standards to be followed by the private sector"? In topics like these, it always goes to "no government running my stuffs" type comments. Hell, if the government is looking at buying something that 100's of millions of americans use, they will get a hell of a better deal than anyone else out there do to them having such a huge bargaining ship.

Again, why does no one think, hey, maybe the government doesn't have to run it, maybe the government can mandate that certain standards are met and if the private sector fails to meet these standards, they get a specific license removed and can no longer offer service until they fix their issues.

Because then all the major businesses affected will cry about it like female dogs.

If you haven't noticed by now, Businesses play a game of attrition with politicians. If proposed changes are made, businesses claim it will cost jobs and profit. What that does is it gets those individual people whose jobs they think are being hurt by the changes to do the businesses dirty work for them in the form of protesting, picketing and writing their congressman.

So then a congressman has to worry about his consituients(sp?) being mad at him for trying to impose regulation on a company that's about to fire people if the regulation goes through.

In the end, a business can play this game and fire people when they don't need to because they're not elected, and politicians are. If you think that I'm wrong, just take a look at how the banking industry played their side during the last year.
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
5,109 Posts
We need smaller government. Not one that takes over everything in the country.

What we need is more internet providers that can compete. Not one big government owned internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
Wonder where the Gov't will find the authority to even propose running an internet scheme like this. Judging by some of the responses however, it seems to not matter.

I guess the gov't will save us from our internet deprived lives.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,683 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by k4m1k4z3
View Post

We need smaller government. Not one that takes over everything in the country.

What we need is more internet providers that can compete. Not one big government owned internet.

And the only way that will ever happen is if the Govt steps in and provides the infrastructure that the companies can then lease out.

Quote:


Originally Posted by PickledStiff
View Post

Wonder where the Gov't will find the authority to even propose running an internet scheme like this. Judging by some of the responses however, it seems to not matter.

I guess the gov't will save us from our internet deprived lives.


think smarter not harder. The internet is a backbone of information now for businesses and govt agencies alike to communicate. It is absolutely vital for daily business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,469 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt
View Post

And the only way that will ever happen is if the Govt steps in and provides the infrastructure that the companies can then lease out.

think smarter not harder. The internet is a backbone of information now for businesses and govt agencies alike to communicate. It is absolutely vital for daily business.

I'm fine if the government lays down the lines and then lets private businesses take over (not comcast or any giants though).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt
View Post

And the only way that will ever happen is if the Govt steps in and provides the infrastructure that the companies can then lease out.

think smarter not harder. The internet is a backbone of information now for businesses and govt agencies alike to communicate. It is absolutely vital for daily business.

I do not see how it is possible for companies to compete with each other when a) They are all using the exact same hardware provided by the government, or b) Only a couple are provided with hardware from the government.

Either they are all equal and nothing gets accomplished or a couple are extremely over funded and eventually depend entirely on the government. Both options seem completely useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt
View Post

think smarter not harder. The internet is a backbone of information now for businesses and govt agencies alike to communicate. It is absolutely vital for daily business.

Oh really, so there isn't a business in the US that doesn't use the internet? I mean, it's absolutely vital... If the internet is vital for business then the business will find the $25 a month to pay for it. Otherwise it will be replaced by a business that does pay for it.

Oxygen is vital, maybe there should be a push for gov't to dispense that to people.

And when was the last time the gov't ran something competently?
 
1 - 20 of 112 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top