Net Nutrality

[Lunyfringe]

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 ...

Because gov't is inefficient, the same reasons TexasBrandon stated that corporations don't do tech well are muliplied several times when the gov't gets involved... especially in some areas, where wheels gotta get greased.

You're suggesting a socialist form of internet... at least partially socialist. That part will undoubtedly suck worse than anything created and maintained by "greedy corporations" (which are caused by a lack of competition, brought about by gov't regulation of a free market.)

 

[Younggun]

I think I would have issue with government running internet like the interstate system.

Firstly, it would require that everyone be taxed to support it. Unless it was taxed on top of the bill but then you will have those with internet being forced to pay for the infristructure of those without internet. Making the "haves" pay for the "have nots". This will invariably lead to more fees to cover the internet costs of "low income" families. I believe similar fees are already tacked on to phone and electric bills.

Secondly, if it came out of the general budget I will expect high speed, top of the line internet at my house out in the boonies. They are gonna take my money they had better give me just as good a shit as everyone else. The only way to make that work is if everyone has equally shitty internet (that's the socialist way)

In reality, there is very little chance the government will actually remove itself from the internet game. It will always be involved in some way. I'd be VERY wary of allowing them any more involvement and being that I don't see internet as a right I don't think the internet should be a government funded project unless it can be shown as vital to the strength of the nation.

 

[Kar98]

You do know the internet was invented by the government for that exact reason, don't you?

 

[Younggun]

You do know the internet was invented by the government for that exact reason, don't you?

Now translate that same reasoning as motivation to run it out to my house. I doubt it would carry the same strategic importance.

 

[motorcarman]

I believe in 'net-neutrality' inasmuch as BOTH teams or players should NOT touch the net during the game!!!! Tennis, Vollyball, WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bob

 

[Kar98]

Now translate that same reasoning as motivation to run it out to my house. I doubt it would carry the same strategic importance.

I hate to bring up the US mail, but their little trucks, or rural mail carriers in many cases, drive out all the way to the middle of BFE to bring you the latest brochures from the USDA on how to best raise your chickens. No "meh, not much money to be made out there, why bother".

So again, this could be taken as pro or contra. Because can you imagine dealing with your ISP as if it was the USPS?

Rather than keep the current regulations or scrap them, either/or, something else should clearly be the answer here. More competition and customer choice, less monopolies exploiting their monopolious positions to the detriment of customers and content providers alike...

 

[Younggun]

I hate to bring up the US mail, but their little trucks, or rural mail carriers in many cases, drive out all the way to the middle of BFE to bring you the latest brochures from the USDA on how to best raise your chickens. No "meh, not much money to be made out there, why bother".

So again, this could be taken as pro or contra. Because can you imagine dealing with your ISP as if it was the USPS?

Rather than keep the current regulations or scrap them, either/or, something else should clearly be the answer here. More competition and customer choice, less monopolies exploiting their monopolious positions to the detriment of customers and content providers alike...

And now I'm feeling like I must defend the USPS, gross.

But I guess I will to some extent, although it shouldn't be taken to mean that I believe there is no other option.

First, the infrastructure is already in place. The roads would be there regardless. The vehicles for rural carriers are often privately owned, not those funny looking USPS bumper cars. There is likely a mileage reimbursement of some sort but no direct purchase. The post offices they work from are also already in place for the larger cities the rural carriers work from.

USPS serves the Feds in insuring the delivery of federal paperwork such as IRS notifications and insured any paperwork sent to the IRS is delayed so that more fees and interest can be charged. Also, jury summons, local taxes, etc. The junk mail simply fills in to help pay the costs. It draws no funding outside of its general postage fees and should probably be an example of how the government should operate (with a damned budget)

On the other side, private industry may do the same faster, cheaper, and with less lost mail. But as noted above, USPS is forced to compete in the private market.

 

[Vaquero]

And now I'm feeling like I must defend the USPS, gross.

But I guess I will to some extent, although it shouldn't be taken to mean that I believe there is no other option.

First, the infrastructure is already in place. The roads would be there regardless. The vehicles for rural carriers are often privately owned, not those funny looking USPS bumper cars. There is likely a mileage reimbursement of some sort but no direct purchase. The post offices they work from are also already in place for the larger cities the rural carriers work from.

USPS serves the Feds in insuring the delivery of federal paperwork such as IRS notifications and insured any paperwork sent to the IRS is delayed so that more fees and interest can be charged. Also, jury summons, local taxes, etc. The junk mail simply fills in to help pay the costs. It draws no funding outside of its general postage fees and should probably be an example of how the government should operate (with a damned budget)

On the other side, private industry may do the same faster, cheaper, and with less lost mail. But as noted above, USPS is forced to compete in the private market.

And that "latency".
By gosh! It gets there though.

 

[karlac]

You're suggesting a socialist form of internet... at least partially socialist.

Now that's a novel spin on what I said.

By your line of reasoning, all "infrastructure" (roads, bridges, dams, Interstate Highway systems, etc.) are "socialist"?

How's that "socialist" REA grid paying off, eh?

 

[karlac]

I think I would have issue with government running internet like the interstate system.

As would I ... but you missed the operative word "infrastructure", which is not the same as the internet.

FedEx rides the Interstate Highway System (infrastructure) to bring your Amazon purchases at great benefit to the consumer.

Much better way to spend your tax dollars on something other than paying of congress' sexual assault cases.

 

[karlac]

USPS is forced to compete in the private market.

And that particular "private market" brought to you in large part by the more efficient "infrastructure" of the Federal Interstate Highway System, spanning coast to coast and border to border ...

 

[Younggun]

And that particular "private market" brought to you in large part by the more efficient "infrastructure" of the Federal Interstate Highway System, spanning coast to coast and border to border ...

I can make valid arguments all day as to why our roadways are of immense importance to the strength of this nation. I would have a far more difficult time making the same arguments for a national fed owned fiberoptic infrastructure.

 

[Younggun]

As would I ... but you missed the operative word "infrastructure", which is not the same as the internet.

FedEx rides the Interstate Highway System (infrastructure) to bring your Amazon purchases at great benefit to the consumer.

Answered above.

Much better way to spend your tax dollars on something other than paying of congress' sexual assault cases.

One of these does not exclude the other. I see no reason to believe that spending money on fiber optic cables would reduce corruption in other areas of government.

One being "more wrong" also does not make the other correct, just "less wrong". Why divert funds from something more wrong to something less wrong when they could simply be left in the tax payers pocket?

AS I said, I would need to be persuaded that a national gov owned and operated infrastructure would be vital to the strength of the nation before I could consider supporting it, and so far you've only argued the importance of roads...

 

[Lunyfringe]

Now that's a novel spin on what I said.

By your line of reasoning, all "infrastructure" (roads, bridges, dams, Interstate Highway systems, etc.) are "socialist"?

How's that "socialist" REA grid paying off, eh?

Not novel at all... I'm just using the definition of socialsim, instead of a negative emotional response to the word.
According to Merriam-Webster (this is 1 of 3 definitions):

Definition of socialism
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

In the case of the internet, the goods being distributed are electronic in nature (streaming movies, etc)... in the case of REA it's electricity. The REA certainly is a socialist program as well- it was done for the betterment of a few, and the cost was born by the many. It was also for the public good, as many of those few also provide goods and services to the many (farms, for example).

The interstate highway system is a socialist program, too...
http://www.ocregister.com/2006/06/29/socialist-interstate-highway-system-50-years-old-today/
and from the left's point of view:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/01/democratic_socialism_has_alrea.html

 

[karlac]

I can make valid arguments all day as to why our roadways are of immense importance to the strength of this nation. I would have a far more difficult time making the same arguments for a national fed owned fiberoptic infrastructure.

You don't have to make any arguments ... both the Internet, and the National Interstate Highway System, were built specifically by your tax dollars with National defense in mind.

 

[karlac]

In the case of the internet, the goods being distributed are electronic in nature (streaming movies, etc)... in the case of REA it's electricity

You missed the fact that, with the exception of fiber optics (still in short supply in the US), most of the Internet packets in the US today travel to your home over low voltage "electrical" lines.

 

[karlac]

and so far you've only argued the importance of roads...

Obviously you're not familiar with the universal analogy of the Internet being initially referred to as the "information super highway".

Wonder why that is, eh? LOL

 

[Lunyfringe]

You missed the fact that, with the exception of fiber optics (still in short supply in the US), most of the Internet packets in the US today travel to your home over low voltage "electrical" lines.

Wrong, DSL is not available in my area... I use a WISP that is served directly by fiber. I understand you're trying to say that many people are using telephone infrastructure to deliver internet, but copper is dead- they've reached the limit of it's capability, it's costly to maintain and not as reliable as wireless or fiber. Stick with it if you want, but don't simultaneously complain that internet is slow and unreliable.

 

[Younggun]

You don't have to make any arguments ... both the Internet, and the National Interstate Highway System, were built specifically by your tax dollars with National defense in mind.

You are attempting to merge initial development and typical phone lines and there necessity during that time with the need for the government (everybody) to pay for new infrastructure to be built going to my house (and everywhere else) today.

You've done nothing to support the idea that it's vital to the strength of our nation. Lot's of things developed for government use have been commercialized, but we don't see the government ensuring that every home has a can of WD40, its not vital to the strength of our nation despite the government funding it's creation.

So, tell my why government building the infrastructure to ensure there is high speed internet at every home in the US is vital to the strength of our nation. How does it help (today) with national defense?

 

[Lunyfringe]

You don't have to make any arguments ... both the Internet, and the National Interstate Highway System, were built specifically by your tax dollars with National defense in mind.

The network you're referring to was the start of "the internet"... Darpanet
https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpanet

virtually nothing that was built for darpa is still in use, it's all been replaced by commercial fiber and equipment. Unlike roads, technology has a much shorter lifespan- sure, fiber laid today could be good for decades, but the quality of fiber even in the 1970s is total shit by today's standards.