Net Nutrality

[Renegade]

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

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 Internet was not designed by gov or with defense in mind. It was designed by geeks, and later commercial interests.

The protocol it uses, IP, does have roots to the defense industry.

 

[karlac]

Wrong, DSL is not available in my area... I use a WISP that is served directly by fiber.

"Fiber", as you use the term above is a network cable that contains strands of glass fibers inside an insulated casing, which currently uses much the same "infrastructure" (poles, underground conduits) for delivery to distribution points.

IOW, you're still missing the point about the necessity for an "infrastructure".

 

[Younggun]

Underground conduits aren't easily repurposed. They can be, but it's not always easy. And just because there is a conduit in the ground doesn't mean you can just shove another cable through it, usually you can't as they are out there for a specific purpose and are large enough to serve that purpose and no more.

Poles rot, get hit by cars, knocked over on storms, etc. and having a pole doesn't mean you can just add more crap. Nor does it mean that the existing infrastructure (FO cables) are large enough to handle increased traffic from new users.

By infrastructure I mean every thing ne fed to get a signal from my computer to whatever server room it's going to and back.

And you still haven't said why it's vital to the strength of the nation.

 

[Lunyfringe]

"Fiber", as you use the term above is a network cable that contains strands of glass fibers inside an insulated casing, which currently uses much the same "infrastructure" (poles, underground conduits) for delivery to distribution points.

IOW, you're still missing the point about the necessity for an "infrastructure".

Wrong again- virtually all fiber that has been laid in at least the last decade outside dense urban areas is direct burial, using horizontal boring machines with leases or private ROW requests thru the land they use... much less intrusive, and more cost effective than burying conduit.

I understand that the fiber, and the equipment connected to it (fiber doesn't do anything without very expensive equipment at either end) is referred to as an infrastructure. I could go on for days about the type of equipment, different protocols (e.g. SONET vs ethernet).. but the $64B question- does the gov't own or need to own that infrastructure? Why?

 

[karlac]

You've done nothing to support the idea that it's vital to the strength of our nation.

It is narrow minded to think the Internet has not become vital to our national, and global, economic strength .... just as the Interstate Highways system has become.

 

[karlac]

much less intrusive, and more cost effective than burying conduit.

You are being too narrow in your arguments, to wit:
"Conduit", in the sense it was used is a means by which something is transmitted.

 

[Younggun]

It is narrow minded to think the Internet has not become vital to our national, and global, economic strength .... just as the Interstate Highways system has become.

That's not an answer.

And I'm not talking about what is readily available today, I'm asking why your idea is. If the government is controlling it then it should be due to some vital national interest. What is it?

 

[karlac]

By infrastructure I mean every thing ne fed to get a signal from my computer to whatever server room it's going to and back..

Go back and read my first mention of the word in post #20 ...
What's the argument?

 

[Younggun]

You are being too narrow in your arguments, to wit:
"Conduit", in the sense it was used is a means by which something is transmitted.

By using the term "conduit" in parenthesis as you did grouped with another item, "poles", you implied that you were using the word in its common usage to describe a means of laying or carrying cable. Not as a means of carrying information. In the context of your use, "conduit" would be considered as a means by which cable is protected. If you hade said "infrastructure (phone lines, cables, conduits" you explanation in its meaning would make more sense but in parenthesis you defined it with things used to make up the infrastructure used to support cable, electrical, and fiber optic lines, not the lines themselves.

 

[Younggun]

So why is government owned and maintained infrastructure supplying internet connectivity tinny house vital to the strength of our nation?

 

[Younggun]

For clarity, I would be a major beneficiary of such a system. I would put in far less than the cost of getting internet to my house with other tax payers footing the majority of the bill.

Unless their cost can be justified it's simply wrong. Hence my request for specific information regarding national interest.

 

[karlac]

That's not an answer.

And I'm not talking about what is readily available today, I'm asking why your idea is. If the government is controlling it then it should be due to some vital national interest. What is it?

Say what?
Might want to go back #20 and explain how you got to asking the above.

 

[Younggun]

Go back and read my first mention of the word in post #20 ...
What's the argument?

First mention is irrelevant, you assigned context when you associated it with a different type of infrastructure by using parenthesis "(poles, conduits)". I don't think anyone who works with utilities of any type would read that as the pole being a pole and the conduit being a phone line on said pole.

 

[Younggun]

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 ...

How is this vital to national strength?

Or if you like, how will government ownership of infrastructure have any effect on corporate money influencing what happens with it?

 

[Lunyfringe]

so karlac- are you suggesting that all of the privately owned infrastructure (fiber paid for by corporations, terminal buildings and equipment connected to the fiber- maybe even the equipment connected to that equipment) should be turned over to the federal gov't for management?

 

[karlac]

So why is government owned and maintained infrastructure supplying internet connectivity tinny house vital to the strength of our nation?

The statement "vital to the strength of our nation" is your terminology, first mentioned by you.
... you defend it.

 

[karlac]

so karlac- are you suggesting that all of the privately owned infrastructure (fiber paid for by corporations, terminal buildings and equipment connected to the fiber- maybe even the equipment connected to that equipment) should be turned over to the federal gov't for management?

No ... only you have said that.

 

[Lunyfringe]

No ... only you have said that.

Only I have said that is NOT what we want.

 

[karlac]

How is this vital to national strength?

Or if you like, how will government ownership of infrastructure have any effect on corporate money influencing what happens with it?

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."

 

[Younggun]

The statement "vital to the strength of our nation" is your terminology, first mentioned by you.
... you defend it.

I have no problem defending it. How would you like it defended?

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.

You had an idea. The first question I have before entertainignbwhether the idea is feasible is "is this something that should even be attempted". I'm simply looking for the reason why money should be taken from tax payers, what is their return?

If there seems to be justification then the conversation could move to how such a change would be made, possibilities for corruption of the system, the effects it may have on innovation, etc. None of that is worth discussing if the cost to tax payers can't be justified.