Senators grill FCC Chairman over 'modest' National Broadband Plan goals
By Donald Melanson 
posted July 12th 2010 2:22PM
posted July 12th 2010 2:22PM
Bringing broadband to everybody is certainly an admirable goal, but at least some US Senators are apparently starting to question if the new National Broadband Plan is ambitious enough. In written questions submitted to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recently, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) pointed out that other nations already have 100Mbps fiber-based services and are beginning to roll out 1Gbps residential services, which would only be required for a "single anchor institution in each community by 2020" under the National Broadband Plan" -- something Inouye says "appears to suggest that the US should accept a 10- to 12-year lag behind the leading nations." That's a sentiment echoed by Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), who asked Genachowski why the plan settled for the minimum download speed of 4Mbps by 2020, and added that "it seems a bit modest for a goal." For his part, Genachowski insists that the 4Mbps targets are "aggressive," and he notes that the plan recommends reevaluating that target every year, so it's possible it could increase over time. Hit up the PDF link below for the complete Q&A.
Dude looks high.
@FNi
lol they think 4Mbps is aggressive
i have already used a 12-16Mbps connection
4Mbps is a bite of the apple, i want the whole god dam apple
@manofchao5
Are you attempting to quantify the extent of the dude's highness by using MBps and green fruit?
Are *you* high?
@manofchao5
pwnd
If this ends up being anything like what they did for telephones, everyone that lives in town will get screwed. What they do is force the companies to provide access to everyone, even when running cable all the way out to BFE doesn’t make economic sense. Then they allow the companies to charge a fee to make that cost up. A fee EVERYONE pays, so basically people in town subsidize the internet for people who live in the middle of nowhere.
@FNi
He doesn't look high as much as he looks like he's sitting for his 8th grade graduation photo.
@FNi Spend more money! It's free!!
It's on the house every one! Free drinks all 'round!
Obama has gone CRAAAAZZZYYY all time hot deals get em now!
Free stuff!! woohoo!
If the bastards are spending our money like there is no f-ing tomorrow then I DEMAND free 1GBPS at my house within 3-5 business days or else!
Some one wake my from this nightmare...
A face only a mother could love
@rmbrown09
You must be speaking from experience. lol
Wow! Government controlled, monitored, and regulated internet access! Sounds great! ....Oh, wait...err....
@InspectorEngadget
but... but... it's "Free"...
@InspectorEngadget
Could your comment be any more ignorant?
@InspectorEngadget
Yes. Because government guidelines = government controlled internet.
These are the same scare tactics that people used with Net Neutrality
And I can tell you why they're being stopped at 4mbps (which is pathetic). Not because the US is so much larger (which is invalidated because we have much more population), but because the corporate lobbyists got to them first.
@InspectorEngadget
The National Broadband Plan does not intend to socialize internet access. Providers like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Cablevision will still exist and we'll still be paying them, but the government will be taking steps to make sure service is available to everyone in the U.S. and that certain standards are met. This is similar to the government's involvement in our electrical grid and access to television.
See this page for more info (scroll down to "The Plan"):
http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/
@Mike10010100 Show me one for-revenue business that the federal government runs well. It doesn't happen. The reason for that is simple and it gets to your point: government officials aren't a part of the private sector. You can talk about corporate lobbyists all day long (and I'm not taking up for them, by the way) but tell me if you think you can trust a career politician - who has never worked in the industry a day in his life, who doesn't know squat about the technology, who has never managed a business of his own - to write the regulations governing that technology. And then tell me how government regulation doesn't, at least in some respects, equal government control.
@Matt1122 I understand that. But it's a bad idea for the same reason CAFE standards are a bad idea: unqualified government officials are writing regulations for an industry that they have no experience in. CAFE standards had the laudable goal of increasing gas mileage, but because the politicians who pushed the idea don't have engineering degrees, and because the regulations they made were more than what the industry was ready for, auto-makers were left with little recourse but to lighten the overall weight of vehicles, leading to the use of lighter materials in auto construction which has been demonstrably linked to an increase in traffic fatalities.
Will government regulated internet kill people? No. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will cost the service providers a ton of money to kick their R&D into overdrive to meet the government deadline and that cost will get passed on to you and me.
@InspectorEngadget
"Show me one for-revenue business that the federal government runs well. It doesn't happen."
That's really irrelevant since it's ONLY GUIDELINES. The government isn't providing internet to anyone. They're forcing ISPs to PROVIDE internet to whomever wants it, since ISPs currently have a geographic monopoly on data services.
But since you asked: The post office started making a profit not too long ago.
"The reason for that is simple and it gets to your point: government officials aren't a part of the private sector. You can talk about corporate lobbyists all day long (and I'm not taking up for them, by the way) but tell me if you think you can trust a career politician - who has never worked in the industry a day in his life, who doesn't know squat about the technology, who has never managed a business of his own - to write the regulations governing that technology."
Saying "Hmmm... I don't think it's fair that someone should have to live under a geographic monopoly. Also, look at far less densely populated countries! They have gigabit connections! Why can't we have that? There are certainly people who want that. Oh....the people say that the provider won't string up their house.
I should know personally. I tried to get Verizon FIOS, and they told me that we lived in an area just outside of where they operate. Can't come to us. We would have to come to them. I'm not buying a completely new house just because they're too cheap to string up a couple new lines.
"And then tell me how government regulation doesn't, at least in some respects, equal government control. "
Because your earlier comment didn't just SAY Government control.
"Government controlled, monitored, and regulated internet access"
Now THAT is just plain scare tactics. They say to the ISPs, you have to provide internet access to people who want to pay for it. The government doesn't "control" the internet and it doesn't "monitor" that new internet connection any more than it already has (thanks Bush!).
@SolidSnake Could your comment be any more constructive?
@InspectorEngadget You're a dum-dum. This is not the government taking control of the ISPs, this is the government doing it's job to try and regulate these shitty companies to actually invest in their infrastructure, provide competitive speeds and provide access to everyone. All of those countries that have better penetration and speeds realized this years ago and did what needed to be done. Now, even Australia, home to the shittiest internet of any first world country, has a better plan for their future than the United States. Do you not see the irony in any of this?
And by the way, this senator is not writing the regulations, that would be the FCC which actually does employ people that know about technology. He's merely doing something that I'm shocked any of these senators have done, asking why our plan is still complete garbage. Where so many of them are whining that the government has no business regulating the industry, he's asking why anyone would expect 4mbits to be a respectable minimum speed in a country as powerful as the United States. Anyone who thinks that we're going to succeed as a country if our internet continues to suck is a delusional moron.
@InspectorEngadget
"I understand that. But it's a bad idea for the same reason CAFE standards are a bad idea: unqualified government officials are writing regulations for an industry that they have no experience in. CAFE standards had the laudable goal of increasing gas mileage, but because the politicians who pushed the idea don't have engineering degrees, and because the regulations they made were more than what the industry was ready for, auto-makers were left with little recourse but to lighten the overall weight of vehicles, leading to the use of lighter materials in auto construction which has been demonstrably linked to an increase in traffic fatalities."
So EVERY car on the road is now made with lighter material? Stuff that will crumple easier, and perhaps allow people to escape from their cars easier?
"Will government regulated internet kill people? No. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will cost the service providers a ton of money to kick their R&D into overdrive to meet the government deadline and that cost will get passed on to you and me."
Good! That's what we've been trying to say from the beginning! I want faster internet connection, but I literally can't get it. It's not because I can't pay for it (I gladly would), but because the ISP has decided that I'm in the "internet challenged" zone of my county. Tell me how that's right for ME?
You're saying that I should pull up roots and get a new house just so that the ISP isn't forced to find a new solution for faster internet? How horrible! The poor ISP doesn't need any kick in the rear! It's all they can do to continue throttling connections and continue rolling around in their piles of cash! Woe is the ISP.
@Mike10010100 Covering every home in every small town in the country with multi-gigabit internet when the usage for the entire town will never saturate a 10Mb link is not economically sound.
@Mike10010100
isn't the post office talking about getting rid of Saturday mail cause they are in the red? Bad example.
@Quantumman
Surely you agree that 4mbps is not enough.
Why would you despise faster internet? Just because people don't use it a ton NOW doesn't mean that it won't be better for the FUTURE!
You do not like having future-ready equipment installed? Just because it's not economically viable doesn't mean it isn't necessary!
Bad news, honey. We've determined that sending you to college isn't economically viable.
@Critic2029
Yep Right up there with that FREE Healthcare ya'll are going to Be getting!!
@ThinkpaxX200s
"Yep Right up there with that FREE Healthcare ya'll are going to Be getting!!"
Awww.... Look who's feeling witty. Thanks to the lobbyists from the insurance industry, the public option was killed.
Have you been living under a rock? Or are you just listening to the rhetoric that's being spouted everywhere?
@Calculon Just so you know, ad hominem attacks such as "dum-dum" and "deusional moron" are strong signs of a weak argument. Try toning down the rhetoric. Now to your point.
People here seem to think that when I said government "control" that somehow I inferred government ownership. I did no such thing. The way government exercises control is through regulation. All I am arguing against is over-bearing government regulation.
That is NOT the government's job when it comes to the private sector. Read the documents upon which this country was founded.
Aside from that, any reasonable economist will tell you that government intervention almost always squelches innovation and competition, and almost never encourages it.
Do I see irony in the global technological situation? Absolutely. But that is the beauty of a free-market. If you find a place where there is a service in demand that is not being provided, you provide the service and you make money. Entrepreneurial spirit is part of what makes this country a great place to live.
@Iamperfect2 I was going to cite that. Thank you.
@InspectorEngadget
"That is NOT the government's job when it comes to the private sector. Read the documents upon which this country was founded."
What?? You're kidding, right?
Time to expose your ignorance:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
- Andrew Jackson
"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
- James Madison
"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."
- Andrew Jackson
"Aside from that, any reasonable economist will tell you that government intervention almost always squelches innovation and competition, and almost never encourages it."
Actually, any reasonable economist would tell you that it's debatable whether or not that happens. For instance, removing lead based paint, regulating the food industry to make sure people don't get sick, requiring pharma to test their products more thoroughly, etc.
"Do I see irony in the global technological situation? Absolutely. But that is the beauty of a free-market. If you find a place where there is a service in demand that is not being provided, you provide the service and you make money. Entrepreneurial spirit is part of what makes this country a great place to live. "
Again, you're telling me that because I live in a less densely populated area that I should be punished? I would love to pay for faster internet! I guess I should just move, sell my home (in a horrible market), and buy another with a horrible mortgage! That's certainly easier than calling up the ISP and forcing them to string up my home!
First, I will only recapitulate my observation of ad hominem attacks regarding your insinuation of my ignorance.
Second, all the quotes you posted expose a straw-man argument. I never said that the government has no role to play in regulation for the protection of its citizenry. Quite the opposite. What I said was, "The way government exercises control is through regulation. All I am arguing against is over-bearing government regulation."
Third, your examples of paint, food, and drugs, are all examples of the government enacting regulation to protect the health of the citizenry. Regulation toward high-speed internet is most certainly not.
Fourth, you are correct. It is the telecom industry's fault that you decided to live in a sparsely populated area that is lagging in internet access. On a more realistic note, your apparent lack of willingness to move to where the internet service you desire is says more about your actual demand for the product than the government's need for intervention. The fact that you and other Americans don't want it bad enough to move is precisely why the telecom companies have not provided it.
@InspectorEngadget Ad-hominems do not immediately mean a fallacy in argument, particularly when they are apt, but good for you for reading wikipedia; it's cute that you've discovered the libertarianism article, you'll grow out of it eventually.
And what exact over-bearing government regulations are you speaking of? There are none, the companies already have the government in their pockets, any existing regulations were written with them in mind. And what innovation are you speaking of? The government enforcing certain speeds and levels of penetration does not get rid of innovation, this is a silly argument. Do you honestly think that if left to the free market any of these companies would choose to innovate over increasing their profits? They've already shown all they care about is money, what makes you think this would ever change? They've had 15 years to wire us with fiber optics and chose instead to keep the money for themselves. For once the FCC is doing something more than ruling on morality and decency and allowing new monopolies and all you can do is whine about THE GOVERNMENT.
LOL and now you're just trolling. You acknowledge the irony that countries that have gone against your argument have succeeded and now outpace us in every area but that proves the free market works?
Checkmate. Game goes to Mike10010100
@InspectorEngadget "Third, your examples of paint, food, and drugs, are all examples of the government enacting regulation to protect the health of the citizenry. Regulation toward high-speed internet is most certainly not."
Haha look at you, thinking the free market would have wired up rural areas with electricity and telephone lines.
@InspectorEngadget
"First, I will only recapitulate my observation of ad hominem attacks regarding your insinuation of my ignorance."
Hey, I calls it like I sees it. Two things I will not tolerate: intolerance and willful ignorance.
"Second, all the quotes you posted expose a straw-man argument. I never said that the government has no role to play in regulation for the protection of its citizenry. Quite the opposite. What I said was, "The way government exercises control is through regulation. All I am arguing against is over-bearing government regulation."
"The way government exercises control is through regulation. All I am arguing against is over-bearing government regulation...That is NOT the government's job when it comes to the private sector. "
Could have sworn you went back to the "regulation is not the government's job when it comes to the private sector. Don't try to weasel yourself out of it now!
"Third, your examples of paint, food, and drugs, are all examples of the government enacting regulation to protect the health of the citizenry. Regulation toward high-speed internet is most certainly not."
No. It's protecting the citizen's right to be able to pay for internet, even when he isn't in a "fortunate" area of town. You can go to many different grocery stores and buy food. You cannot, however, get an ISP that serves juuuust outside your house to string the extra mile, even if you're willing to pay.
This regulation ensures that we will not be living under a geographic monopoly.
"Fourth, you are correct. It is the telecom industry's fault that you decided to live in a sparsely populated area that is lagging in internet access. On a more realistic note, your apparent lack of willingness to move to where the internet service you desire is says more about your actual demand for the product than the government's need for intervention. The fact that you and other Americans don't want it bad enough to move is precisely why the telecom companies have not provided it."
What. The. Fuck. You're literally telling me that it's MY fault that I was born into a house that has less-than-stellar internet access. You're then telling me that because I'm unwilling to BUY A NEW HOUSE, even in this market, shows that I'm not worthy of faster internet??????
Alright, I'm calling it. This guy either doesn't have a logical bone in his body, or is too caught up in rhetoric to see the absurdity of his statements.
Or he's a troll.
@Mike10010100 4Mb is not a reasonable upper limit, I'll give you that, but this is a MINIMUM. A rate that is plenty to check email and generally surf the web. Now its true bit torrent, running a webserver, and downloading/streaming large files would work a lot better over a much faster connection, but those are not minimum requirements to access the web, they are additional perks you can get in some areas with some carriers.
As per your issue with nasty evil verizon not 'stringing up a few more cables': fiber is expensive to install, the upstream controllers are expensive and they are not making such a huge profit on it that they can justify just dumping fiber everywhere.
All I'm saying here is that 4Mb is reasonable min to GUARANTEE every person within 10 years. Now if it becomes cheaper to run cable or provide a high-speed link to house in the country, then they can reevaluate and up the speed.
BTW the average starting salary of electrical and computer systems engineers from my school happens to be almost twice what I'm paying to go, so I will recoup my investment in the next few years.
@Calculon I'm trolling? You insinuating that your description of me as a dum-dum and a delusional moron are apt is little more than bullying. But it's ok. Aside form that I am not a libertarian, I'm a Constitutional Constructionist for what it's worth.
"And what exact over-bearing government regulations are you speaking of? There are none, the companies already have the government in their pockets, any existing regulations were written with them in mind." GM ring a bell? Sounds more to me like the government has the corporation in its pocket on that one.
"Do you honestly think that if left to the free market any of these companies would choose to innovate over increasing their profits?" This is a false dichotomy. Companies in a free-market make profits BECAUSE they innovate.
"They've already shown all they care about is money, what makes you think this would ever change?" I don't think it will. This is why they went into business in the first place - to make money. If you don't like how they do things, vote with your wallet. If there is no alternative, become an entrepreneur and provide the public with a service more to your liking that you think will be well received by the market. Then you make money.
Look, we obviously have differing political/economic ideologies. I hope we can still be civil. Thanks for your time and making me think. I always enjoy a good debate.
@InspectorEngadget "Fourth, you are correct. It is the telecom industry's fault that you decided to live in a sparsely populated area that is lagging in internet access. On a more realistic note, your apparent lack of willingness to move to where the internet service you desire is says more about your actual demand for the product than the government's need for intervention. The fact that you and other Americans don't want it bad enough to move is precisely why the telecom companies have not provided it."
And then you claim that our big cities have anything resembling "decent' internet access. Internet sucks in the United States, from rural podunk cornfields to the biggest, most densely populated cities. Get over yourself and your libertarian talking points, all your proving is the selfishness and shortsightedness of free market worshipers.
@Mike10010100
it's fairly obvious he was trolling to start a "dialogue".. or more appropriately some flaming.. a simple, initial comment that was broad and overstated led to some intelligent responses (thank you for that).. which led him to decide he wanted to actually try and flesh out and justify some of the ridiculous statements he was making. only to realize that they were still ridiculous.
while i'm ranting.. the idea that the government cannot run a service profitably is a fallacious argument in and of it self. for someone who loves labeling arguments in terms of their logic fallacies, inspectorengadget makes a huge one by asking for a profitable government entity. the government's role in industry, outside of regulation, is where society sees fit but industry cannot serve. no health insurance company can turn a profit by providing coverage to poor, sick, or elderly individuals. i'll assume everyone can understand the role of government there.
similarly, expecting telecom companies to provide broadband access nationwide when they can simply corner markets and sustain themselves by creating usage plans with overage charges, throttling access (less bandwidth for bittorrent and more for hulu perhaps), etc. is not realistic. it wouldn't be good business for them, so society, through government, provides a push in that direction. probably because somewhere, a group of idealistic individuals imagined that with increased access to the wonderful world of the interwebs, citizens would become more informed and connected.. unfortunately, i estimate lolcatz views will probably grow 10 fold and porn will reign supreme.
@InspectorEngadget I'm definitely trolling you because it's fun, but I was more hopeful that you were trolling because you clearly didn't think out parts of your argument. And your one example is the government bailing out a failing auto company that would have been pretty disastrous to our economy? How about just looking at how these corporations pay lobbyists to have the laws written in their favor.
And no, companies do not make profits because they innovate. What exactly have the major Cable, Telecom and ISPs innovated on in the last 10 years? They make a profit because they provide a service that we, the consumer, want/need and can not get from anyone else. And as their profits increase, and the cost of maintaining their networks goes down, what do any of us, the consumers, have to show for it? The same shitty speeds, latency, penetration, hardware, etc. It's 2010 and when I press a button on my cable remote it takes 3 seconds to register. My internet connection randomly drops all the time and suffers during peak hours because they've oversold the node in my neighborhood. I can't use my own cable box or use a HTPC because even if cable cards weren't complete shit I would still not be able to access all the channels or on demand offerings. Even when this is technically possible it involves dongle upon set top box upon dongle which complicates things and invariably becomes unstable and a mess to use. We wouldn't even have cable cards if the government hadn't become involved. I could go on forever about this, your argument that the free market, left to itself, will lead to endless innovation and government regulation only curtails this is false.
These companies don't care, even if they are technically providing a service it's still subpar. There is no competition, and telling me or anyone that if we don't like it we should start a company is laughable. Yeah, I'll get around to that once I can get around the billions spent by the industry to prevent new competitors from entering the market, or the fact that it would cost an insane amount of money to wire a network even if I was able to get around those regulations.
@Calculon I'll agree to disagree with you.
@Quantumman
You're much more reasonable than InspectorEngadget.
I agree. It is a minimum, but 10 years? Come on now. I'm on 6mbps now. 4 mbps in 10 years is ridiculous! If they said something like 30 or 40 mbps in 10 years, I would be much much happier. Due to the fact that technology is advancing in an exponentially accelerating fashion, is it not reasonable to think that in 10 years, 30 or 40 mbps will be considered "slow to lower-mid-range"?
"BTW the average starting salary of electrical and computer systems engineers from my school happens to be almost twice what I'm paying to go, so I will recoup my investment in the next few years."
Which is why I'm becoming a Computer Engineer myself. The college thing was an example of how short-sighted money constraints can limit long-term benefits.
@InspectorEngadget:
"I'm trolling? You insinuating that your description of me as a dum-dum and a delusional moron are apt is little more than bullying. But it's ok. Aside form that I am not a libertarian, I'm a Constitutional Constructionist for what it's worth."
Really? Free market this, free market that. Sounds like a Libertarian viewpoint to me. But whatever. Label yourself however you want.
""And what exact over-bearing government regulations are you speaking of? There are none, the companies already have the government in their pockets, any existing regulations were written with them in mind." GM ring a bell? Sounds more to me like the government has the corporation in its pocket on that one."
Hahahaha. GOVERNMENT has GM in THEIR pocket??? ROFL. No. Lobbyists from GM convinced the government that they would be much better off bailed out, so that's what happened. GM gets free money and autonomy. It's a complete win for them.
""Do you honestly think that if left to the free market any of these companies would choose to innovate over increasing their profits?" This is a false dichotomy. Companies in a free-market make profits BECAUSE they innovate."
You seem to ignore market stagnation: when companies stop innovating because they're already providing a profitable product that everyone wants. Why invest more into R/D when you already have a GEOGRAPHICAL monopoly on your product? If one person complains, to hell with them! The corporation is still making money and no new competition can occur.
"I don't think it will. This is why they went into business in the first place - to make money. If you don't like how they do things, vote with your wallet. If there is no alternative, become an entrepreneur and provide the public with a service more to your liking that you think will be well received by the market. Then you make money."
Create a competing ISP?? Rofl. that's something that is known as "geographical monopoly" it's physically impossible to get a new ISP going, as the regular ISP will simply lower its rates for a while, drive you out of business, and then raise them again. Geographical monopoly at its finest.
"Look, we obviously have differing political/economic ideologies. I hope we can still be civil. Thanks for your time and making me think. I always enjoy a good debate."
I do as well. Thank you.
@polintelligentic
Good points, all. Very excellent analysis. I agree.
@InspectorEngadget
Meanwhile, in the middle of the evil socialist state of Sweden...
...our apartments come equipped with Ethernet wall sockets providing 10/10 Mbit Internet access for free with 100/100 Mbit available for $10 a month.
Surely we'd been much better off leaving the development of network infrastructure to for-profit corporations whose only incentive is charging ever increasing sums for existing bandwidth.
Yeah.
@Calculon; InspectorGadget is not making off the wall arguments that you seem to think he is. You and others are making the mistake of thinking only in terms of current technology and also assuming everyone wants these high speed pipes. First by rolling out a high speed fiber network, supported by the government with a triple A bond rating you then reduce the incentive for any company to compete with that by innovating with new kinds of wide area wifi or satellite technologies since it would be impossible to compete with this government backed service. Second, you support this program because you would benefit that most from it will the costs would be spread out amongst the entire population in the form of taxes. Some one who just uses the internet for email and lolcats does not need 10mbps and it would be unfair to force them to pay for a service they do not need or even want. On a sidenote @Calculon, you can move to a number of places with better internet connections without buying a house, there are a number of college towns with dirt cheap rents in the surrounding communities with great connections.
@Exodite Oddly enough, I actually lived in Sweden for a while. Loved it there. Beautiful country. Would like to go back for a visit one of these days. That said, when you sarcastically say that you would have "been better off leaving the development of network infrastructure to for-profit corporations whose only incentive is charging ever increasing sums for existing bandwidth," you leave out the part where you guys generally pay a good deal more for common goods and services than we in the U.S. do.
@lastgiantrobot Thanks.
@Mike10010100
Wait a minute. Did you actually just use the U.S. Postal Service as an example of something the government runs well? Have you sent anything in the postal service recently?
@Mike10010100 You dope. You misquoted Jefferson's statement. He never said restored to the government, he said restored to the "people". Nice try though. What we have today in government controlling our currency through inflation and deflation by our government (again part of the quote) is exactly what Jefferson warned against. Any credibility you may have had is now gone in trying to rewrite history to make the founders seem like they were all for the progressive agenda. Are you taking your queues from Michelle Obama perhaps when she said we would have to change our history? Since when is the internet a right? I don't care if it's not convenient for you where you live. Internet is not a right. Having freedom is a responsibility that means we might not get all the same things that socialized countries do...but we have our freedom. Every time we trade a bit of that away so that we can have things more "convenient" we put ourselves more and more towards tyranny ( what our founders feared". It doesn't happen all at once, it happens bit by bit. It happens by extending unemployment benefits to indefinitely. It happens by giving food stamps to people who don't need them. It happens by giving people "free" health care. It happens by growing government more and more each year by tacking on more and more regulation. A many trillion dollar deficits does it take to prove that? Better yet, how many examples in history do we need to pull out to show exactly where this leads, and exactly how horribly it fails? But God forbid you have slow internet.
@InspectorEngadget
That's true, I fail to see the relevance though.
Our VAT, for anything but food and litterature IIRC, is at 25% and generally speaking goods traversing the pond tend to end up with $1 = 1€ pricing.
If you're going to try and argue that our higher tax burden relieves us of the extra money you're paying for services such as 10/10 or 100/100 Mbit fiber Internet access then let me stop you right there.
We do pay a lot higher taxes, no denying that, but the median Swede enjoys a higher disposable income and a higher standard of living than the median US citizen along with the benefits of said taxation - including state-funded network infrastructure.
The point of my initial post was that the abject terror you're showing at the idea of government involvement is, at best, woefully misplaced.
It's the very point of a government to make sure every citizen has access to basic goods and services, which in a modern society of this day and age includes a reasonable network infrastructure.
I'm sure you'll agree that Internet access have by far transcended the realm of luxury services. Heck, ask our neighbors the Finns if you won't take my word for it.
@Mike10010100
Here is the government 'controlled' fiber I get.
http://epbfi.com/internet/
Comcast and ATT tried to stop it, but EPB won out. For 69$, a 20 Mbps symmetric connection (and speeds are as advertised). No contract, very helpful customer service, free installation, etc. The bundles have unbelievable value too.
I love the Government. :)
@Persalsum
"Having freedom is a responsibility that means we might not get all the same things that socialized countries do...but we have our freedom."
I'm subject to all the evils you mentioned - effectively indefinite unemployment benefits, strong social security services and 'socialized' medicine.
While I'm not touching the rest of your argument with a 10ft pole I'm curious as to exactly what 'freedom' you consider yourself having that I don't?