Net Nutrality

[karlac]

Only I have said that is NOT what we want.

In effect arguing with yourself.
LOL

 

[Younggun]

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."

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?

 

[Lunyfringe]

In effect arguing with yourself.
LOL

umm, no... where did I ever say that the gov't taking over any part of the internet was a good idea?
Please quote it.

 

[karlac]

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 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 ...

 

[karlac]

Internet is not a right.

Who said it was?

This equation is balanced for consumers across the nation in billions of transactions every day via capitalism.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Is our current infrastructure and and competition base weakening the nation?

Again, you brought that up ... you tell me.

 

[Younggun]

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 ...

How are the highways built and maintained? Tax payer dollars I suppose.

How do you suppose we pay for the infrastructure for internet service?

Maybe we are talking pst each other, I don't know. Maybe I'm not understanding your idea correctly or maybe you aren't understanding my issue with it.

Plausible considering that I understand the question Loony asked about government acquiring privately owned infristructure and you seemed to think it wasn't a relevant question. So maybe some of us are simply not seeing your idea taking the same form as you have. Communication breakdown...?

At any rate, one of us or both are not getting the other so it's probably not sensible to keep digging at it unless you can be far more specific about what you had in mind, although I didn't read post 20 as a specific plan.

 

[Lunyfringe]

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)...

 

[Younggun]

Who said it was?



What in the hell are you talking about?



Again, you brought that up ... you tell me.

sigh

 

[karlac]

sigh

No shit! LOL

 

[Younggun]

Let's start over...maybe for a couple posts. I'all try not to make any assumptions.

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 ...

In what ways would you have it be similar to the highway system.

 

[karlac]

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)...

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 speed 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.

 

[Vaquero]

LMAO

 

[karlac]

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 ...

 

[karlac]

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.

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.

 

[Younggun]

See #71 ...

In this case I just don't see enough benefit to the majority of tax payers. I would benefit greatly, but I think many would get a bad deal.

I have no issue with this idea on smaller scales with local governments (think county precincts) but on a national scale I just don't like the cost/benefit for the average American.

I also worry that it would hurt innovation. Private sector is great at it, always looking for the better/faster/cheaper alternative in order to be more competitive. One the gov has it there is no one to compare with (on the infrastructure side) and I think the technology would become stagnant.

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.

 

[Lunyfringe]

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.

why not is what I've been stating for the past 3 pages... does the federal gov't currently own any interstate fiber infrastructure?

I would submit that any suggestion to socialize a privately owned and maintained "infrastructure" requires the burden of proof for why, and not the other way around of "why not?"

gee, why not spend Billions of dollars providing internet at subsidized prices to people that may or may not need it- or some that may use it for nefarious purposes (hacking)

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.

 

[Younggun]

I really believe the future will be primarily wireless and the discussion of fiber optics and phone lines will be a moot point.

 

[karlac]

Aaannnnd now we're back to where I state you are proposing socialist internet.

As "socialist" as the streets you drive on to get home.

 

[karlac]

I really believe the future will be primarily wireless and the discussion of fiber optics and phone lines will be a moot point.

Yep, just like the railroads are today ...
They still played a big part in the economy of this country.
As the Internet will increasingly continue to do until it follows the same path.

 

[karlac]

I also don't think the government could manage such a system as cheaply as a private company could.

I can't argue with that ... however, facilitating the building of, and managing of, don't necessarily coincide.

Most of the power generating dams in this country were built with tax incentives and tax payer dollars, and are subsequently managed by private corporations .. Entex, a case in point.

The gov does waste loads of money, I just don't see that as a persuasive argument for this.

Yep, but you may be unaware that much of the infrastructure already exists, and that company's like Google are using tax incentives to take advantage of that fact. Bring some National focus and incentives to that same effort, like we did when building upon existing wagon trails, then highways, then Interstate Highways, and it will be no surprise at what can be accomplished despite the waste inherent in large projects, government or otherwise.