GOP hates free internet

ZarathosNY

ZarathosNY

CAGiversary!
http://www.mobilepipeline.com/164300100

Federal Anti-Municipal Wi-Fi Bill Introduced



By Mobile Pipeline Staff Mobile Pipeline

A Texas Congressman has introduced a bill that impose a nationwide prohibition on municipally-sponsored networks.

Dubbed by the Author, Representative Pet Sessions (R-Texas), the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005, the bill prohibits state and local governments from providing any telecommunications or information service that is "substantially similar" to services provided by private companies.

The bill, HR 2726, is similar to a host of state bills pushed by telecommunications companies aimed at fending off municipally-run wireless networks. Some of those bills, most recently one in Texas, have been stalled in state legislatures.

The telecommunications operators say that such networks represent unfair competition while municipalities claim that the services are needed to promote business and close the gap between digital haves and have-nots.

According to Sessions' on-line biography, he is a former employee of Southwestern Bell and Bell Labs. The bill will first be considered by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
 
I am gonna laugh when all those companies are put out of business by that guy who made kazaa. He has a phone service that is free and works over the internet like those VoIP companies

edit: that is not to say I will not be sad to see thousands of people lose their jobs, but with the way these technology monopolies drive up prices, they need to be put out of business
 
I'm reminded of the dig at the US in Alpha Centauri. I can't recall the exact quote, but it implied the collapse of the US was due to it attempting to limit access to imformation and stifle innovation.

I wish I still had that game.
 
This reminds me of the bill that Rick Santorum (R-Pa) is trying to push where it's illegally for the government-run National Weather Service to compete directly with privately-owned Accuweather, which coincidentally resides in State College, PA.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I am gonna laugh when all those companies are put out of business by that guy who made kazaa. He has a phone service that is free and works over the internet like those VoIP companies

edit: that is not to say I will not be sad to see thousands of people lose their jobs, but with the way these technology monopolies drive up prices, they need to be put out of business[/QUOTE]

Actually city and county owned services usually dominate a market just as much as any private company. As soon as the city phases out private business, you'll still see a monopoly and the same high prices. Also, that kazaa-owned phone company will struggle thanks to not everyone having access to the internet and the incresing number of people dropping home phone service anyways and simply using cell phones. I don't see how the OP figures that the government will run these services for free, it doesn't mention it in the article, but maybe I'm just foolish. Still, care to fill me in?
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Actually city and county owned services usually dominate a market just as much as any private company. As soon as the city phases out private business, you'll still see a monopoly and the same high prices. Also, that kazaa-owned phone company will struggle thanks to not everyone having access to the internet and the incresing number of people dropping home phone service anyways and simply using cell phones. I don't see how the OP figures that the government will run these services for free, it doesn't mention it in the article, but maybe I'm just foolish. Still, care to fill me in?[/QUOTE]

You're missing one thing however. As more and more ppl migrate to cell phones from home phones, there's also a migration of ppl from dial up to broadband. The phone program uses unused portions of your broadband to deliver the digital signal and convert it to an analog waveform. And since the phone calls are free (it's called Skype), I can call anyone in the Philippines or Japan or Korea for free as long as they have Skype as well. Everyone in my family all over pretty much has Skype and my migration to cell phones is almost complete. Skype won't struggle with direct revenue since their funding is received via advertisers and calling non-Skype users. But if there's someone you know who doesn't have Skype, all you have to do is call them on your cell phone. So Skype won't suffer any time soon.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Actually city and county owned services usually dominate a market just as much as any private company. As soon as the city phases out private business, you'll still see a monopoly and the same high prices. Also, that kazaa-owned phone company will struggle thanks to not everyone having access to the internet and the incresing number of people dropping home phone service anyways and simply using cell phones. I don't see how the OP figures that the government will run these services for free, it doesn't mention it in the article, but maybe I'm just foolish. Still, care to fill me in?[/QUOTE]

Actually from what I saw, counties and towns that actually win the right to do this charge substantially less. I read about like the three towns that actually do it, and one in KY only charges like 25 for high speed internet and 15 for phone or something like that, and this was 2 or so years ago.

Also with a city the prices will not be as high, because the taxpayers will not allow the companies to take measures that increase costs such as taking massive amounts of depreciation to have new vehicles all the time (granted most are newer, but they probably would not be replaced to the same extent).

As far as the kazaa thing failing, high speed internet is growing at a pretty fast rate, and most people that have it also pay for a land line. I know in our state there are still 4.9 million land lines, which is a large market to tap into. As far as people who have cell phones, if the service is free why not use it if you can save minutes on your plan with it? With a minimal investment, you have a service for your house that does not cost you anything to use. I really think this guy is onto something, and this could be a revolutionary step in communication if he does things right.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I really think this guy is onto something, and this could be a revolutionary step in communication if he does things right.[/QUOTE]

I have it and it's the best thing since the original phone was invented. I'm waiting for 3 months so I can do a comparison of how much $$$ I save vs. regular land line.
 
They are just jealous because Al Gore invented the internet.

The real reason they hate it is because the internet is a great easy source for kids to see that what their parents have been telling them is bullshit.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']I have it and it's the best thing since the original phone was invented. I'm waiting for 3 months so I can do a comparison of how much $$$ I save vs. regular land line.[/QUOTE]

I would not have even known about it had it not been on the front page of the newspaper.

glad to hear it works so well
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Dubbed by the Author, Representative Pet Sessions (R-Texas), the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005, the bill prohibits state and local governments from providing any telecommunications or information service that is "substantially similar" to services provided by private companies.[/QUOTE]
I always love the way congressmen label their bills. I think this one may be more appropriately titled "the preserving profit in telecom act of 2005" I've had cable internet for 2 years now, and though I love it, the only 'innovation' I've seen has been a rise in price of $5 every 6 months or so. Meanwhile, it appears that they've crammed every subscriber in a 50 mile radius onto the same line because my download speed does nothing but get a little slower every month.

God, I hate you Roadrunner, I hate you! Wait, I don't mean it! I love you, I can't live without you! Please, rape me some more - I can't live without you...

*cries pathetically*
 
[quote name='fanskad']I'm reminded of the dig at the US in Alpha Centauri. I can't recall the exact quote, but it implied the collapse of the US was due to it attempting to limit access to imformation and stifle innovation.

I wish I still had that game.[/QUOTE]


As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Click to expand...

I've always been amazed by the time and effort they put into the idiologies presented in Alpha Centuri.

And the game it pretty cheap, you might want to consider picking up another copy. I really wish they would make a sequel, or even a Civilization on par with it.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I would not have even known about it had it not been on the front page of the newspaper.

glad to hear it works so well[/QUOTE]

Skype is a free program. It works just like AIM. Click on a username to 'dial' them and it'll connect you and *bam* you have a crisp voice connection to somone on the other side of the planet. Go to Skype.com
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I've always been amazed by the time and effort they put into the idiologies presented in Alpha Centuri.

And the game it pretty cheap, you might want to consider picking up another copy. I really wish they would make a sequel, or even a Civilization on par with it.[/QUOTE]


I loved Alpha Centuri. It's one of the few games I have that will work on my laptop. (old compaq pentium 150). Although right now I play Baseball Mogoul 2004 on it.
 
There is a problem with local governments competing with SBC, Verizon, RoadRunner etc.

They don't have to put up the backbone networks. It's all well and good that your town of 5,000 in West Texas gets county or city provided broadband but are they going to run a backbone line to Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or Austin? Oh hell no.

Who is? SBC or another LD internet provider.

I have no problem with rural towns starting up broadband utilities. If the phone or cable companies can't justify bringing out broadband to homes that are 2-10 miles apart I don't see the harm in this. Likewise in small towns where there may only be a few dozen to a couple of thousand households and there's no financial incentive for a private company to run fiber, so what.

The issue is if cities like Houston, Dallas or San Antonio get into the telecom business to generate revenue. How can you compete with a government owned utility? Not just on price but if you need to dig up streets, stop traffic, install poles etc. hmmmmm those permits are going to take anywhere from 6-9 months to approve.

There are no government research centers that are going to take the average US broadband speed from 3MBps to 50MBps. Yet they'll take that technology once developed, provide it at cost without having to pay for the hundreds of millions or billions in R&D that some private enterprise developed? Yeah, that's unfair. It's legalized theft of IP and you can't fight the government.

They should run this on a waiver basis. If companies are willing to write off entire counties of a state as unprofitable to wire for broadband fine. It's the same thing that was done in the 20's- 30's for the electrification of rural America. Cities and towns formed electrical co-ops instead of having a commercial provider. When I lived in Arkansas I was amazed I got back a check from my electric co-op each year equal to about 3/4th of a monthly bill, all their profits went back to their members.

Broadband is no less important today and to the future economy as electricity was at the beginning of the 20th century. However you can't just give city governments carte blanche to run roughshod over private industry. Structure it the way the did the electric co-ops and I don't see the problem with it you're then dealing with non-profit corporations as opposed to government run and enforced monoplies.
 
One can look at the internet as sort of the same thing as the electric companies. Another way to look at it, though, is like a public library. You COULD simply not have public libraries, and instead have privately-run corporations that provide book access (for a fee, of course.) The vast majority of people, though, think that its vastly more important to give as many people as possible access to information. That's because information is power, and without public libraries, that information/power becomes impossible to access for the poorest citizens.

Now the question is, what exactly is the internet like, a library or electricity? The Philidelphia plan (and most other publicly-provided internet plans I know of) doesn't involve wiring every house in the area, simply broadcasting a publicly available signal (over the frequency spectrum which, legally, belongs to everyone and is managed by the goverment 'for the public good') to the area. So the electricity analogy doesn't really work there.

One of the key functions of the internet is distributing information. Can anyone say 'public library system'? Another key function of the internet is communication - can anyone say 'US Mail system'? In function, it does definitely seem that the internet provides electronic duplication of functions the government already provides. The government provides these functions because they're considered important enough that EVERYONE should be guaranteed access to them.

People can live without electricity - its not fun, but its possible. Living without access to information, though, generally inhibits upward mobility which is one of the foundations of what America is supposed to be about.
 
[quote name='Drocket']People can live without electricity - its not fun, but its possible. Living without access to information, though, generally inhibits upward mobility which is one of the foundations of what America is supposed to be about.[/QUOTE]

Just curious, if you have no electricity.... how can you access the internet.

Also, if you have no electricity, doesn't it also inhibit upward mobility?

Its all well fine and good to compare the internet to libraries and the post office but here's the catch. The post office charges for doing its job. The library has a budget paid from burough or township taxes and usually is funded by a co-op of 3 or more of the previous. None of them are "free".

Just because you see "cheap" or "free" when you walk in the door in no way implies the population didn't pay for these things with or without even knowing it. This is what so fundamentally flawed about liberal thinking in general, someone is paying for this stuff but they always say it's not individuals, it's the "government".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The library has a budget paid from burough or township taxes and usually is funded by a co-op of 3 or more of the previous.[/QUOTE]

So... do you agree with libraries funded from taxes or not?

As for myself, I love the double standard in this country.

Old distribution methods (IE physically visiting the library and checking things out) are still kosher, but the copyright pigs won't let libraries use any modern methods of distribution (IE through email/electronic books)

I don't know if I dig free internet, but I don't think it's a federal matter. States rights, states rights! (Remember those, Republikans?)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Just curious, if you have no electricity.... how can you access the internet.

Also, if you have no electricity, doesn't it also inhibit upward mobility?

Its all well fine and good to compare the internet to libraries and the post office but here's the catch. The post office charges for doing its job. The library has a budget paid from burough or township taxes and usually is funded by a co-op of 3 or more of the previous. None of them are "free".

Just because you see "cheap" or "free" when you walk in the door in no way implies the population didn't pay for these things with or without even knowing it. This is what so fundamentally flawed about liberal thinking in general, someone is paying for this stuff but they always say it's not individuals, it's the "government".[/QUOTE]

But if everyone pays a little out of taxes, then everyone, no matter if they are homeless, in poverty, or mega rich can utilize those services. If the service is pay when used, then some people couldn't utilize those services or would have to severely limit their use (basically, the ones who need it most).

Though there are a bunch of houses I know of without electricity in the areas of vermont (at least in Burke and the surrounding area), I'm sure there's plenty more of them out in the rural west and south.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Just curious, if you have no electricity.... how can you access the internet.[/quote]
Quite true. One COULD use a BlackBerry or other similar device, though (and they're becoming more common all the time.)

Also, if you have no electricity, doesn't it also inhibit upward mobility?
Click to expand...
If you think about it, not specifically, no. Not having a telephone would, since it would be difficult to get job-callbacks. Not having electricity, though - It would be more difficult to wash your cloths, but lots of people use the laundromat anyway. It would take longer to cook your meals, without a microwave, but that's not a huge problem (unless you live in an area that doesn't offer natural gas service.) You may not fit in with your co-workers if you haven't seen American Idol, but that's not a serious problem. The fact that you have to go to bed early might mean that you actually perform better at your job, increasing your upward mobility.

Its all well fine and good to compare the internet to libraries and the post office but here's the catch. The post office charges for doing its job.
Click to expand...
Quite true - the post office isn't the best of analogies. It WOULD be a good analogy for a government-run pay-for-access internet service, though.

The library has a budget paid from burough or township taxes and usually is funded by a co-op of 3 or more of the previous. None of them are "free".
Click to expand...
I never claimed libraries were free. What I claimed was that libraries provide enough benefits that its worthwhile for the government to provide that service, even though it isn't technically 'necessary'. Everybody pays a little bit for library access, and everybody has equal access to the services that are provide by the library, even though many (most) people don't take advantage of them.

Public libraries aren't absolutely needed. If libraries didn't exist, there almost certainly would be private libraries that would either charge a monthly fee for access or a 'per book' rental fee. Historically, these sort of entities have existed (Benjamin Franklin, in fact, established one of the first ones in the US), but have been driven out of business by 'unfair' government competition.

Ultimately, the question isn't 'couldn't this be done by private corporations?', but 'is it better if this is done by private corporations?' I know you're going to claim that's a liberal argument, and that's going to lead to the argument between classical and modern liberalism which nobody ever finishes, so can we just skip it and accept that the vast majority of Founding Fathers supported publicly funded libraries (including the previously mentioned Franklin, and several others who ran private lending libraries)?

The question then is, would the founding fathers find there to be any significant difference between puplic libraries and publicly-provided internet access? That's not a completely pointless question: Republicans/Conservaties always argue that they're simply trying to uphold the principles of the founding fathers. If the founding fathers would support publicly-provided internet access, then in fact it should be a conservative agenda issue, and not a liberal one.

Ok, I'll stop rambling now.
 
[quote name='Drocket']The question then is, would the founding fathers find there to be any significant difference between puplic libraries and publicly-provided internet access? That's not a completely pointless question: Republicans/Conservaties always argue that they're simply trying to uphold the principles of the founding fathers. If the founding fathers would support publicly-provided internet access, then in fact it should be a conservative agenda issue, and not a liberal one.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that modern Republicans/Conservaties think that the founding fathers are Jesus, Moses and the "manifest destiny" type of christian god.
 
Manifest destiny was a saying come up with by a newspaper columnist, John L. O'Sullivan, in 1845. It was never popularized by a founding document, President, Senator, Congressman or policy position put forward by any of the departments of the Executive Branch; interior being the most likely believed.

The founding fathers were on par with a level of brillance unparalleled in human history. No group of people have ever laid forth a system of government and basic societal law that have created a nation with so much wealth and power so strong and so fast and become so dominant. Personally speaking I do think this country was founded by the grace of God. I can't see how such prosperity, freedom and perhaps most importantly the ability to feed ourselves and the world can come from plain old dumb luck.

Link explaining origin of manifest destiny.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Manifest destiny was a saying come up with by a newspaper columnist, John L. O'Sullivan, in 1845. It was never popularized by a founding document, President, Senator, Congressman or policy position put forward by any of the departments of the Executive Branch; interior being the most likely believed.[/quote]
Camoor never claimed that it was a belief of the Founding Fathers, only that an unfortunately high number of people believe that it was. I would say that he's essentially correct about that - most American's aren't terribly well informed about, well, much of anything really.

The founding fathers were on par with a level of brillance unparalleled in human history. No group of people have ever laid forth a system of government and basic societal law that have created a nation with so much wealth and power so strong and so fast and become so dominant. Personally speaking I do think this country was founded by the grace of God.
Click to expand...
If we want to bring in our own personal religious believes, then I would agree with you here. What I would disagree with is the idea that God's grace was given because we're a 'Christian Nation' founded on 'Christian principles' - something which is historical revisionist nonsense.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']This reminds me of the bill that Rick Santorum (R-Pa) is trying to push where it's illegally for the government-run National Weather Service to compete directly with privately-owned Accuweather, which coincidentally resides in State College, PA.[/QUOTE]

I was under the impression that elected officials are supposed to look out for their consituents. Can't blame him for introducing the bill.

Hopefully, other officials help balance out crap that isn't good for the rest of the country. In practice, though, they seem to just let each other pass tons of selfish crazy crap.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']We can feed the world? We're not doing a good job of it then.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely we can. Of course, the world has to pay for it. Who in this country works for free?

Agriculture exports were nearly $62 biilion dollars last year and we're still paying people not to grow corn, wheat, soybeans, rice etc to prevent excessive market supply.
Link
 
What we (the u.s.) produce, or could produce, would not feed the world unless it was rationed, or at least we cut back on our excess, though I'm doubtful even then. Though, there's no point in saying we can feed the world if a good portion of the world can't afford it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What we (the u.s.) produce, or could produce, would not feed the world unless it was rationed, or at least we cut back on our excess, though I'm doubtful even then.[/quote]
Well, I highly doubt that we could feed the WHOLE world - if every other country on the planet were to stop producing food tomorrow, there'd be big problems. I do think, though, that we could use our surplus (and potential surplus, which is currently supressed to keep prices higher) to fill in the 'gaps' in the world food supply. The amount of food to feed the currently under-nourished sections of the world is a lot less than what it would take to feed the whole world.

Though, there's no point in saying we can feed the world if a good portion of the world can't afford it.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is a point: if we couldn't end world hunger, then obviously, there'd be no real point in discussing it at all. If, in fact, we can, then the question arises 'why aren't we?', regardless of whether they can afford it or not. Possibly we should re-examine our principles, if we're willing to let people starve to death simply to make a few bucks extra.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Well, I highly doubt that we could feed the WHOLE world - if every other country on the planet were to stop producing food tomorrow, there'd be big problems. I do think, though, that we could use our surplus (and potential surplus, which is currently supressed to keep prices higher) to fill in the 'gaps' in the world food supply. The amount of food to feed the currently under-nourished sections of the world is a lot less than what it would take to feed the whole world.


Actually, there is a point: if we couldn't end world hunger, then obviously, there'd be no real point in discussing it at all. If, in fact, we can, then the question arises 'why aren't we?', regardless of whether they can afford it or not. Possibly we should re-examine our principles, if we're willing to let people starve to death simply to make a few bucks extra.[/QUOTE]

That's basically what I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top