In effect arguing with yourself.Only I have said that is NOT what we want.
LOL
In effect arguing with yourself.Only I have said that is NOT what we want.
Again, you are not paying attention. Go back and read the first sentence that frames the entire context of the post you are arguing with:
"Infrastructure and local competition are the most important parts of the equation for consumers."
umm, no... where did I ever say that the gov't taking over any part of the internet was a good idea?In effect arguing with yourself.
LOL
I think you are putting forth an idea that would cost the tax payers with most of them having little or no benefit, "not vital to national interest". I don't believe they should bear such a cost.
Internet is not a right.
This equation is balanced for consumers across the nation in billions of transactions every day via capitalism.
Is our current infrastructure and and competition base weakening the nation?
You got all that from something proffered as "just a thought" that the consumer might possibly benefit by a concept similar to the benefit they derive from the Interstate Highways?
How about offering something constructive with that in mind ...
So, I'm confused by how you propose this would be accomplished...If we must have the government involved, which it already is, how about an Interstate Internet Infrastructure using the same concept as the Interstate Highway system?
Just a thought ...
Who said it was?
What in the hell are you talking about?
Again, you brought that up ... you tell me.
No shit! LOLsigh
Infrastructure and local competition are the most important parts of the equation for consumers.
Right now the big players are influencing both state and local governments to pass laws limiting who can provide access, in some cases even prohibiting municipalities from taking the initiative to provide access with local tax dollars. This situation is much easier to accomplish when you have a lock on the infrastructure.
If we must have the government involved, which it already is, how about an Interstate Internet Infrastructure using the same concept as the Interstate Highway system?
Just a thought ...
So, I'm confused by how you propose this would be accomplished...
Do you know that fiber distance between equipment (at least regenerators to bring light levels back up) is limited? So an Interstate system can't be just the fiber- it requires buildings, power, equipment, etc... all of which requires maintenance, monitoring (equipment fails, fiber gets cut all the time), staffing at many of the buildings, and in the field. This snowballs into needing an annual budget, management, engineering (several types)...
Let's start over...maybe for a couple posts. I'all try not to make any assumptions.
In what ways would you have it be similar to the highway system.
Let's start over...maybe for a couple posts. I'all try not to make any assumptions.
In what ways would you have it be similar to the highway system.
See #71 ...
why not is what I've been stating for the past 3 pages... does the federal gov't currently own any interstate fiber infrastructure?You're correct ... can't argue that all that goes with the territory.
I can't personally answer your questions above, but I certainly can ask why not?
As discussed, we have a historical record of tax payer dollars providing both the means and incentives to create infrastructures like railroads, highways, electrical grids (both rural and urban), bridges, dam, etc.
Why not a similar infrastructure to bring high broadband at a price most consumers will be able to afford?
Sounds like a helluva better investments in tax payer dollars than the boondoggles congress spends unwisely.
Aaannnnd now we're back to where I state you are proposing socialist internet.Facilitate the building of an infrastructure that moves ip packets, analogous to the manner in which we move trucks and commercial goods on the public highway system.
How? Same way we built the railroads, highways, the dams, the bridges, the REA, the electrical grids, using the same brew of tax incentives and dollars that built much of the infrastructure of these benefits to the tax payer and consumer.
Aaannnnd now we're back to where I state you are proposing socialist internet.
I really believe the future will be primarily wireless and the discussion of fiber optics and phone lines will be a moot point.
I also don't think the government could manage such a system as cheaply as a private company could.
The gov does waste loads of money, I just don't see that as a persuasive argument for this.